Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's online rant spurs threats to supes, police reports(missionlocal.org)
missionlocal.org
Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's online rant spurs threats to supes, police reports
https://missionlocal.org/2024/01/y-combinator-ceo-garry-tans-online-rant-spurs-threat-to-supe-police-reports/
652 comments
Many CEOs are regular people who happen to be overtly charismatic to a fault. It just so happens that overtly charismatic people tend to be rewarded greatly by our social structures
These CEOs aren't doing anything different in these situations - they're being themselves and doing what they did to get their position. Other people generally don't call them out on their BS because it's an uphill battle fighting overtly charismatic people, and it's much easier to accept their flaws for the benefit of riding their coattails to the top
This is why they can't differentiate between upsides/downsides - people let them get away with things that other people can't, and to them it is all the same
These CEOs aren't doing anything different in these situations - they're being themselves and doing what they did to get their position. Other people generally don't call them out on their BS because it's an uphill battle fighting overtly charismatic people, and it's much easier to accept their flaws for the benefit of riding their coattails to the top
This is why they can't differentiate between upsides/downsides - people let them get away with things that other people can't, and to them it is all the same
I've never heard of Garry Tan before just now, but he didn't strike me as "overtly charismatic" in the linked article. He struck me as incredibly unhinged and unlikeable.
Those are not mutually exclusive in my experience.
"unhinged and unlikeable" are charismatic traits nowadays. Those are exactly the personality aspects people believe are necessary and find attractive in truly innovative leaders, like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk. They read as hard-nosed sincerity and truth, no bullshit. The unreasonable man to which the world must yield.
Hell, we recently elected a President almost entirely because he was the biggest asshole in the room.
Hell, we recently elected a President almost entirely because he was the biggest asshole in the room.
> Those are exactly the personality aspects people believe are necessary and find attractive in truly innovative leaders, like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk.
Nothing says innovative leader like taking something a bunch of other people were already doing and doing it the same with added sociopathy on top.
Nothing says innovative leader like taking something a bunch of other people were already doing and doing it the same with added sociopathy on top.
> "unhinged and unlikeable" are charismatic traits nowadays.
Nowadays? It goes back millennia.
Nowadays? It goes back millennia.
>Hell, we recently elected a President almost entirely because he was the biggest asshole in the room.
Speak for yourself. This seems to be mostly an American problem.
Speak for yourself. This seems to be mostly an American problem.
Both Europe and Asia have their own problems with authoritarian, strongman-type fascists.
The rise of right wing parties all over the world suggest it's not a uniquely American problem, unfortunately.
While I might disagree with the political opinions of those right wing parties, I've never seen any of them show complete incompetence and stupidity to the level of suggesting that people inject themselves with bleach to cure a virus.
While he never suggested injecting bleach, may I introduce you someone incompetent, and unable to keep his mouth shut before blurting out racist nonsense.
Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson.
Chlorination of the gene pool in the most literal of senses.
That is an actual lie
The quote is
> Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.
I guess if you want to argue about the true meaning of "something like that" or "to use medical doctors with" injecting disinfectant.
> Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.
I guess if you want to argue about the true meaning of "something like that" or "to use medical doctors with" injecting disinfectant.
Guess you looked it up, realized your mistake and want cover anyway
I might be convinced that founders tend to be charismatic (they convinced a bunch of people to build their dream when it was just a dream, after all), but your run-of-the-mill CEO certainly isn't.
> Many CEOs are regular people
Agreed
> who happen to be overtly charismatic to a fault.
Not so much.
> they're being themselves and doing what they did to get their position.
yes, there is a way of talking in industry that allows people to rise through the ranks. Its very rare that you get to the top by being an odious prick all the time.
However, people on the inside don't tend call out CEOs, because they need something from them. If you are frank with your CEO and they don't like it, you're out on your arse, to be replaced by a yes man. (not always, but its surprisingly common)
It is very easy to become a CEO as a normal person, only to develop into an horrid shit later.
Agreed
> who happen to be overtly charismatic to a fault.
Not so much.
> they're being themselves and doing what they did to get their position.
yes, there is a way of talking in industry that allows people to rise through the ranks. Its very rare that you get to the top by being an odious prick all the time.
However, people on the inside don't tend call out CEOs, because they need something from them. If you are frank with your CEO and they don't like it, you're out on your arse, to be replaced by a yes man. (not always, but its surprisingly common)
It is very easy to become a CEO as a normal person, only to develop into an horrid shit later.
>Not so much.
Could probably fix that quote by adding "believe they are."
>who happen to believe they are overtly charismatic to a fault.
Could probably fix that quote by adding "believe they are."
>who happen to believe they are overtly charismatic to a fault.
Money and fame corrupts, alcohol disinhibits that corruption.
Corruption can lead to money and fame.
> Many CEOs are regular people who happen to be overtly charismatic to a fault.
It's quite common for them to appear overtly charismatic at first glance. Narcissism and psychopathy are extremely common at that level. It's why you should always be weary of CEOs who seem a little bit too happy to have a very high-profile public presence.
It's quite common for them to appear overtly charismatic at first glance. Narcissism and psychopathy are extremely common at that level. It's why you should always be weary of CEOs who seem a little bit too happy to have a very high-profile public presence.
I've worked for several big companies where the CEO wanted people to ask tough questions at big meetings from the rank and file and so on. Front line managers had to prompt employees to ask question so it wasn't just awkward silence.
It's telling executives would think people would just ask tough questions on demand. It of course costs the CEO nothing to provide everyone else at the company tough questions / feedback, employees though need to consider their words carefully depending on who at a company is listening as there can be real consequences.
It's one of those things that I'm sure seems like it makes the executive look "open", but rather it just shows their ignorance / are out of touch with the life of a rando worker.
Not a surprise that kind of unawareness leaks out of the workplace as they operate in a space where they are often relatively free to speak their mind.
It's telling executives would think people would just ask tough questions on demand. It of course costs the CEO nothing to provide everyone else at the company tough questions / feedback, employees though need to consider their words carefully depending on who at a company is listening as there can be real consequences.
It's one of those things that I'm sure seems like it makes the executive look "open", but rather it just shows their ignorance / are out of touch with the life of a rando worker.
Not a surprise that kind of unawareness leaks out of the workplace as they operate in a space where they are often relatively free to speak their mind.
My Boss (the CTO at a mid-sized company) says he really appreciates my candor and ability to ask challenging questions, but based on his reactions when I do so I'm pretty sure what he actually really likes the IDEA of being an executive who invites diverse and dissenting input, more than having people do it.
To be generous, sometimes how one feels in the moment is different than how one feels when given time to reflect. So it may be that your boss really does appreciate it (just not right then).
"Managers often say they'll reward something – perhaps they even believe it. But then they proceed to reward different things. I think people are fairly good at predicting this discrepancy...." - "People can read their manager's mind", Jossi Kreinin - https://yosefk.com/blog/people-can-read-their-managers-mind....
This happened with me -- VP said he wanted feedback but clearly didn't like real critical feedback. Then that VP tried to set up a denied promo, even though I was performing two levels above my then-current level. Finally the company got bought and levels were frozen and he was laid off (as executives are often laid off in an acquisition), so who knows what would happened.
The other thing is, there's no guarantee that a CEO that genuinely wants the rank and file to ask tough questions still won't instantly fire someone for the wrong tough question. Some CEOs are all about wanting to be challenged and pushed back by their employees until someone accidentally hits a nerve on a bad day, and there's very little recourse for most employees in the US if they get fired because they pissed off the executives.
Yes, this. It's a clear and obvious trap.
I was at a big company where this happened. I also knew of a person behind the scenes with admin access making sure softball questions were voted to the top.
Then they dropped voting when the questions got too real.
Then they lit up the staff by saying, “If you don’t like being here, then leave!”
Then they stopped taking questions and went back to fireside chat monologs that offered no real information.
One of the many Dilbertian experiences in my career.
I once accused a VP of creating an environment of “opaque transparency” in a large staff meeting… nobody laughed, though I got lots of private kudos after the meeting.
Much of the corporate world is smoke and mirrors. That’s the nature of the game unfortunately.
Then they dropped voting when the questions got too real.
Then they lit up the staff by saying, “If you don’t like being here, then leave!”
Then they stopped taking questions and went back to fireside chat monologs that offered no real information.
One of the many Dilbertian experiences in my career.
I once accused a VP of creating an environment of “opaque transparency” in a large staff meeting… nobody laughed, though I got lots of private kudos after the meeting.
Much of the corporate world is smoke and mirrors. That’s the nature of the game unfortunately.
I'm a YC alum and it's an important bullet point on my resume.
I would rather YC leadership kept their political positions to themselves as much as is reasonably possible. It dilutes the value of that bullet point -- I want it to communicate things about my work ethic and competency. I don't want it to imply _anything_ about my political opinions.
I don't have a problem with tech leaders holding political positions, nor do I have a problem with them making personal donations based on those opinions. Quietly.
I would rather YC leadership kept their political positions to themselves as much as is reasonably possible. It dilutes the value of that bullet point -- I want it to communicate things about my work ethic and competency. I don't want it to imply _anything_ about my political opinions.
I don't have a problem with tech leaders holding political positions, nor do I have a problem with them making personal donations based on those opinions. Quietly.
I'd rather they do it publicly than secretly tbh. At least you know where they stand.
As for companies, judge their actions, not their words.
As for companies, judge their actions, not their words.
> I want it to communicate things about my work ethic and competency
Doesn't it just communicate that you got in to YC?
Doesn't it just communicate that you got in to YC?
A CEO represents the organization that they're a CEO of. It's natural and not entirely unwarranted for people to think that a CEO's behavior and attitude is also reflected to some degree by the organization itself.
Why the double standard? Why should or shouldn't it be couth for someone to talk about their political positions? Everyone is a human, and you don't get anything done in politics unless there is mass action, which means we must have conversations, public AND private, about politics.
I'm sorry, if you are like "I'm glad they gave me the money and the label" and can't take it when someone associated makes an embarassing human moment, you are just trying to have your cake and eat it too. Do better.
I'm sorry, if you are like "I'm glad they gave me the money and the label" and can't take it when someone associated makes an embarassing human moment, you are just trying to have your cake and eat it too. Do better.
I don't think the parent wants to eat their cake and have it too; they're torn between having the credentials or abandoning them because it's embarassing. And who can blame them? I've never said the words "Y Combinator" outside the West coast and got a positive reaction.
YC can have political opinions, but they should acknowledge the opportunity cost of putting their politics before their community. Behavior like the one linked in the OP is incredibly petty and probably should make the associated parties feel bad about working with that kind of person. Lord knows I feel ashamed to be an HN user today.
YC can have political opinions, but they should acknowledge the opportunity cost of putting their politics before their community. Behavior like the one linked in the OP is incredibly petty and probably should make the associated parties feel bad about working with that kind of person. Lord knows I feel ashamed to be an HN user today.
Do better? No, Tan and YC need to understand this will impact their image.
Free speech has consequences. And speech that has unhinged threats (even if it has a disclaimer that it's not) has potential consequences with law enforcement.
I don't think it's out of line for someone who's investing their time and effort into an organization to be critical of leadership.
Free speech has consequences. And speech that has unhinged threats (even if it has a disclaimer that it's not) has potential consequences with law enforcement.
I don't think it's out of line for someone who's investing their time and effort into an organization to be critical of leadership.
nobody is saying free speech doesn't have consequences. I'm saying taking money and reputation has consequences too.
But at what point do 'consequences' start to negate the 'free' in speech?
I'd argue you have reached the limits of free speach the moment there are consequences for just the speech.
I'd argue you have reached the limits of free speach the moment there are consequences for just the speech.
because they want the signal to come from what YC has accomplished and represents, not the personal opinions of someone associated with them who's leveraging his unrelated benefits in a socially very unacceptable way.
Are you suggesting branding is irrelevant?
He said he was drunk when he posted the rant calling for slow death of most of the San Francisco city council, so of course he didn't send it to corporate PR to check. This kind of behavior shouldn't be acceptable for the head of a respectable corporation, even if his tweet hadn't led others to follow up with death threats. He should resign or be dismissed and YC should replace him with a responsible adult. This isn't a minor offense, it is grotesque. If he remains, it reflects very badly on YC.
Obviously, YC is not a "respectable organization", since they picked this fruitcake as their leader. This also explains why a portion of the readership of this site is so obviously unhinged.
If you judge someone based on their worst day, you won't live a very happy life.
People suffer consequences for their worst day all the time. Ordinary workers who engage in this kind of conduct usually get fired, often followed by police investigation, and they aren't judged for the days that they didn't bring their companies into disrepute by calling for the death of public officials. A CEO should be held to a higher standard, not a lower standard.
If you expect not to be judged for your worst behaviour, then everyone around you won't live a happy life.
He's not being judged by what he said on his worst day, its his worst day because he is being judged by what he said on just another day to him.
It's the new spin on "I want the President to be someone I can have a beer with."
Quoting 2Pac lyrics is just comical. Even more out of touch than Ben Horowitz (of Andreessen Horowitz) starting every chapter of his ultra-corporate startup book with Jay-Z lyrics.
Quoting 2Pac lyrics is just comical. Even more out of touch than Ben Horowitz (of Andreessen Horowitz) starting every chapter of his ultra-corporate startup book with Jay-Z lyrics.
Ben Horowitz is a pretty interesting guy
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/technology/one-family-man...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/technology/one-family-man...
TIL: Son of David Horowitz. Oh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz
Maybe they don't care at all whether they are in or out of touch. That is a preoccupation of people at a certain age.
Heh. I look forward to If Books Could Kill's review. Failing that, I imagine this review properly captures the gist:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RFZJKA736UBAH/ref...
I'll reserve judgement until we see how a16z's "digital asset class" thing pans out. Some might even say blockchains are eating the world.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RFZJKA736UBAH/ref...
I'll reserve judgement until we see how a16z's "digital asset class" thing pans out. Some might even say blockchains are eating the world.
Ben is a long-time (life long?) rap lyric afficionado and in that respect actually quite "in-touch".
Yeah, nothing says “digging in the crates” more than quoting the most mainstream possible artist in a genre.
Give me DOOM lyrics or GTFO.
Give me DOOM lyrics or GTFO.
I see your DOOM and raise Viktor Vaughn :)
what exactly is a "rap lyric aficionado"? He's about as in-touch as an Ivy-league academic studying poverty is with living in rural Appalachia.
I think you misunderstood the meaning of "out of touch" in this context.
He’s not. What does rap lyric aficionado even means? Tupac is not even that lyrical or rhyme elite.
[deleted]
That’s what most business “leaders” do. When the money is rolling in they are visionaries, when the money is threatened it’s the economy and time for layoffs. So anything good is their doing, anything bad and it’s time to deflect.
I suppose I can't disagree with the advise you're providing, although I'm a little troubled by the implication that the problem here is simply that he didn't send this vile rant to his social media team to proofread before he posted it.
It's not to proof-read it, it's to make sure it's not going to damage the company.
Everyone has opinions that would get them cancelled on Twitter. Most of us are sensible enough to keep them to ourselves, or, at least, off Twitter, without even having the responsibility to maintain the image of a business. He has a duty to his employees, his clients, and his investors that goes far beyond the standard duty of "Don't be an asshole on Twitter."
Political hyperbole is also kind of the norm on Twitter (which is one of many reasons I don't spend much time there), so it's entirely possible he thought he was being humorous, and that it was abundantly obvious that he shouldn't be taken literally. Which might even be true. But CEOs are at extra risk of getting taken out of context and willfully misinterpreted, and they should fucking Tweet like it.
I disagree with what he said, but I'm more insulted that the people are allowed such insane levels of power and responsibility and are given such disproportionate compensation have the common sense of a middle-schooler.
Everyone has opinions that would get them cancelled on Twitter. Most of us are sensible enough to keep them to ourselves, or, at least, off Twitter, without even having the responsibility to maintain the image of a business. He has a duty to his employees, his clients, and his investors that goes far beyond the standard duty of "Don't be an asshole on Twitter."
Political hyperbole is also kind of the norm on Twitter (which is one of many reasons I don't spend much time there), so it's entirely possible he thought he was being humorous, and that it was abundantly obvious that he shouldn't be taken literally. Which might even be true. But CEOs are at extra risk of getting taken out of context and willfully misinterpreted, and they should fucking Tweet like it.
I disagree with what he said, but I'm more insulted that the people are allowed such insane levels of power and responsibility and are given such disproportionate compensation have the common sense of a middle-schooler.
He's literally the CEO of YC, and news.yc is social-media adjacent at least. What he posted would not pass mustard here.
'Pass muster,' the figure drawn from the military practice of mustering (gathering) troops for inspection of their uniform, equipment, and personal grooming. Unsatisfactory presentation can result in being sent away to fix it, usually repeatedly and at length while being smoked by an NCO, to help you remember not to make the same mistake again. When this occurs, the one so dismissed has failed to pass muster.
I think he meant "If he offered me the mustard, I'd tell him to go to hell"
I think the point was more that sending it to a team would have hopefully resulted in it not being posted at all.
The battlecry of the executive: "Rules for thee but none for me"
Isn't it the reverse though? If a not notable person tweeted this stuff, it would have blown over and no one would have cared. But since he is notable it becomes a story
I think that was the point of the parents "public figures" comment
I think that was the point of the parents "public figures" comment
> Isn't it the reverse though? If a not notable person tweeted this stuff, it would have blown over and no one would have cared. But since he is notable it becomes a story
This is not borne out by historical events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Sham...
This is not borne out by historical events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Sham...
If a non-notable person tweeted this, they might have lost their livelihood.
Cancel mobs for stuff like this for Joe Average may have worked in 2018, but now are effectively over. It's equals parts a post-ZIRP cultural shift of companies no longer pretending to care about DEI, a post-Elon Twitter cultural shift for what's seen as acceptable, and a post-Oct 7 shift where, frankly, companies are now scared shitless to take political stances in general because of how sensitive the topic of the current war in the middle east is.
They might, or they might be one of thousands of people on a tuesday
I'm sure his company's legal staff has reminded his employees to not engage in political action while appearing to represent their company. My company sure does.
How would it have blown over? Normal people with jobs lose them all the time due to making idiotic comments online that get back to their employer.
Note that I say "idiotic comments", not outright " F U and die" comments as is the case here.
Note that I say "idiotic comments", not outright " F U and die" comments as is the case here.
It's their battlecry, not necessarily in tune with reality.
> It's fascinating to me the extent to which executives don't consider themselves "public figures" when it comes to potential downsides, but they do in terms of upsides.
Really? Because they are all about upsides.
"My initiatives led to 1,500,000 new bank accounts opened in the last 3 quarters!"
Vs.
"I didn't have any knowledge that the 1,450,000 new bank accounts were opened fraudulently!"
Really? Because they are all about upsides.
"My initiatives led to 1,500,000 new bank accounts opened in the last 3 quarters!"
Vs.
"I didn't have any knowledge that the 1,450,000 new bank accounts were opened fraudulently!"
They want the power, but not the responsibility.
Based on that tweet, this person does not fit any definition of "executive" that I would subscribe to.
[deleted]
No, see, tech CEOs are all brilliant brain geniuses, and any attempt or notion to run their ideas or behavior past experienced professionals is nothing but a sop to outdated traditions which risks not just slowing them down, but by extension slowing all of humanity down and condemning literally uncountable future generations to darkness and death! Is that what you’re advocating for? The premature deaths of uncounted billions? You monster.
“We believe any deceleration of my tweeting will cost lives. Deaths that were preventable by the tweet that was prevented from existing is a form of murder.”
(with no apology and copious reference of Arkell v. Pressdram to Mr. Andreessen)
(with no apology and copious reference of Arkell v. Pressdram to Mr. Andreessen)
[deleted]
Humans run the gamut.
Sure there are humans that stickerbomb a tie die hatchback or go on Joe Rogan but then you got your human that lives a private life and drives a gray crossover.
Sure there are humans that stickerbomb a tie die hatchback or go on Joe Rogan but then you got your human that lives a private life and drives a gray crossover.
Ever notice how most of them never even joke about certain things?
Like, say, death threats?
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of humans go their entire lives without joking about death threats.
Like, say, death threats?
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of humans go their entire lives without joking about death threats.
Y... ikes!
It's about time Y Combinator has executives who aren't so busy with politics. It gives the whole incubator, startup scene, etc, a bad name.
The good ol' days are over. I still have in my mind Y Combinator of Paul Graham (a man wise with his words), but given that we've already had even Sam Altman in control of it.
I'm guessing YC nowadays is not that different from private equity/VCs like A16z, which enjoy having their fingers on everything. Typically, it is stuff they don't know much about and look plain stupid.
I hope PG can bring the good ol' days back someday, when it was about entrepreneurship, having people laser-focused on building disruptive companies.
It's about time Y Combinator has executives who aren't so busy with politics. It gives the whole incubator, startup scene, etc, a bad name.
The good ol' days are over. I still have in my mind Y Combinator of Paul Graham (a man wise with his words), but given that we've already had even Sam Altman in control of it.
I'm guessing YC nowadays is not that different from private equity/VCs like A16z, which enjoy having their fingers on everything. Typically, it is stuff they don't know much about and look plain stupid.
I hope PG can bring the good ol' days back someday, when it was about entrepreneurship, having people laser-focused on building disruptive companies.
> GRAHAM: No, no, no, politics. The problems with San Francisco are entirely due to a small number of terrible politicians. It’s all because Ed Lee died. The mayor, Ed Lee, was a reasonable person. Up till the point where Ed Lee died, San Francisco seemed like a utopia. It was like when Gates left Microsoft, and things rapidly reverted to the mean. Although in San Francisco’s case, way below the mean, and so it’s not that it didn’t take that much to ruin San Francisco. It’s really, if you just replaced about five supervisors, San Francisco would be instantly a fabulously better city.
> COWEN: Isn’t it the voters you need to replace? Those people got elected, reelected.
> GRAHAM: Well, the reason San Francisco fundamentally is so broken is that the supervisors have so much power, and supervisor elections, you can win by a couple hundred votes. All you need to do is have this hard core of crazy left-wing supporters who will absolutely support you, no matter what, and turn out to vote.
> Everybody else is like, “Oh, local election doesn’t matter. I’m not going to bother.” [laughs] It’s a uniquely weird situation that wasn’t really visible. It was always there, but it wasn’t visible until Ed Lee died. Now, we’ve reverted to what that situation produces, which is a disaster.
https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/paul-graham/
> COWEN: Isn’t it the voters you need to replace? Those people got elected, reelected.
> GRAHAM: Well, the reason San Francisco fundamentally is so broken is that the supervisors have so much power, and supervisor elections, you can win by a couple hundred votes. All you need to do is have this hard core of crazy left-wing supporters who will absolutely support you, no matter what, and turn out to vote.
> Everybody else is like, “Oh, local election doesn’t matter. I’m not going to bother.” [laughs] It’s a uniquely weird situation that wasn’t really visible. It was always there, but it wasn’t visible until Ed Lee died. Now, we’ve reverted to what that situation produces, which is a disaster.
https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/paul-graham/
GRAHAM> … It’s all because Ed Lee died
Similar to Garry Tan in that.
He didn't say he was a political white night, just a reasonable politician that got replaced with unreasonable ones. These things happen.
Seems Graham and Tan had similar views of the problem, just Graham is diplomatic about it and doesn't go on drunk rants.
the sage wisdom of "the problem with politics is that the people who get the most votes win"
I get you are being sarcastic, but the real problem is people don't vote and you see this at every level of government office. Other than the president, it's hard to engage people (which I don't really fault them for) and so you end up with politicians - all across the field - who do nothing but pander to the most extreme voters.
That's not what he's saying in the quote though, he's mad that the people who are engaged are people that don't agree with him and dismisses voters as "crazy"
He even goes as far to call this "broken" — it's literally democracy.
He even goes as far to call this "broken" — it's literally democracy.
> it's literally democracy.
I guess it is the formal definition.
In Australia we have a slightly different version. We don't prevent the crazies from voting. Instead we insist everyone must vote, including the crazies. Turns out when you do that the non-crazy voters outnumber the rest by a considerable margin.
A weird thing happens when you make voting compulsory. Another bunch, which I now regard as crazy, insists they should be free to not vote. They get fined. (I have a vision of what would happen in the USA if someone proposed compulsory voting. It's far left and far right politicians who would be thrown out if the centre voted, inciting their following to riot in the streets, shouting "Freedom!")
It's kinda funny, because they are allowed to not vote. The actual requirement isn't to vote because it's impossible to police. The requirement is to turn up at the polling place and have your name recorded. You can write whatever you damned well please on the voting slip. After most elections the country gets to have a laugh at the insults and pornographic images that have been inscribed on those slips.
It's also funny because these crazies are insisting they have a right to not participate in the democracy. And they don't. Those that do participate then pass rules to fine them, and the non-participants get pissed off about that and demonstrate their now white hot anger by not voting again.
And I bet you thought I was being harsh for calling them crazy. It's like watching someone put their hand in a fire, and not remove it because it hurts.
And that is an excellent example of why compulsory voting works. The voices of the crazies literally get drowned out by the people who would otherwise be too lazy to vote. Or perhaps they just figure they are in the centre, know stuff all about the candidates, and most other people are reasonable like them so they won't change the outcome. But it turns out if most normal, reasonable, uninformed people remove themselves from machinery of democracy, what you get left with is crazies voting for crazies.
I guess it is the formal definition.
In Australia we have a slightly different version. We don't prevent the crazies from voting. Instead we insist everyone must vote, including the crazies. Turns out when you do that the non-crazy voters outnumber the rest by a considerable margin.
A weird thing happens when you make voting compulsory. Another bunch, which I now regard as crazy, insists they should be free to not vote. They get fined. (I have a vision of what would happen in the USA if someone proposed compulsory voting. It's far left and far right politicians who would be thrown out if the centre voted, inciting their following to riot in the streets, shouting "Freedom!")
It's kinda funny, because they are allowed to not vote. The actual requirement isn't to vote because it's impossible to police. The requirement is to turn up at the polling place and have your name recorded. You can write whatever you damned well please on the voting slip. After most elections the country gets to have a laugh at the insults and pornographic images that have been inscribed on those slips.
It's also funny because these crazies are insisting they have a right to not participate in the democracy. And they don't. Those that do participate then pass rules to fine them, and the non-participants get pissed off about that and demonstrate their now white hot anger by not voting again.
And I bet you thought I was being harsh for calling them crazy. It's like watching someone put their hand in a fire, and not remove it because it hurts.
And that is an excellent example of why compulsory voting works. The voices of the crazies literally get drowned out by the people who would otherwise be too lazy to vote. Or perhaps they just figure they are in the centre, know stuff all about the candidates, and most other people are reasonable like them so they won't change the outcome. But it turns out if most normal, reasonable, uninformed people remove themselves from machinery of democracy, what you get left with is crazies voting for crazies.
I'm also Australian but I do not think our style of compulsory voting would be popular in the US, my understanding is the way elections are managed in the US suppresses the voter turnout.
For example in the US they have their elections on a Tuesday (in Australia it is a Saturday), this strikes me as suboptimal if you want the most people to vote then you should hold the election at a time that is convenient for the largest number of people, which is not in the middle of a regular working day.
Australia also has pre-polling (i.e. you can turn up to a polling station and vote before the nominated "election day") and Postal voting (both of which are to my understanding extremely controversial in the US).
I believe in the US you also need to register to vote and you have to take steps to maintain your registration. again that is an added barrier that creates more friction.
Australia also has Preferential voting, I do not believe US elections use this method.
For example in the US they have their elections on a Tuesday (in Australia it is a Saturday), this strikes me as suboptimal if you want the most people to vote then you should hold the election at a time that is convenient for the largest number of people, which is not in the middle of a regular working day.
Australia also has pre-polling (i.e. you can turn up to a polling station and vote before the nominated "election day") and Postal voting (both of which are to my understanding extremely controversial in the US).
I believe in the US you also need to register to vote and you have to take steps to maintain your registration. again that is an added barrier that creates more friction.
Australia also has Preferential voting, I do not believe US elections use this method.
If people are too lazy to vote and yet complain about the outcome of elections... who's really the crazy one?
The point is that most people just aren't that engaged with politics, period. Most people who aren't voting aren't complaining about who is getting voted in.
How is that crazy? I doubt that national elections usually have voting margins of a single vote.
A political and electoral system can have elections that are fair in principle but tend to produce results few are happy with in practice even when they voted for the winner. Is that democracy? Well, maybe, but I'd argue it's not doing democracy very well.
US presidential elections come to mind; the likely nominees of both major parties are viewed unfavorably by a majority in polls, but one of them is almost certainly going to win.
US presidential elections come to mind; the likely nominees of both major parties are viewed unfavorably by a majority in polls, but one of them is almost certainly going to win.
US presidential elections aren't "really" democracy IMO, we've had a long string of presidents that didn't even win the popular vote
Compulsory voting is an option.
Dilute the votes of those who care with votes of random idiots who would never vote if not forced to and who make their decisions randomly or based on populism.
You can as well add 30% random votes, although those would be spread equally between candidates, not based on color of their hair, or random fake quote on the ineternet
You can as well add 30% random votes, although those would be spread equally between candidates, not based on color of their hair, or random fake quote on the ineternet
Most people already don't vote voluntarily.
Forcing the uninformed and uninterested to vote has never yielded better results by any measure.
Forcing the uninformed and uninterested to vote has never yielded better results by any measure.
it would at least help with making voting the default, also it would be normal to insert it into a schedule for employers, have enough polling places, etc. (okay, okay, I know, of course it's terminal naivete, fascist cumbombs would continue to smear their nastiness all over anyway. yet defaults matter. laws matter.)
In california you have two weeks to vote in some precincts. Its more time consuming to buy milk than it is to vote for many.
that's an interesting theory but nearly impossible to prove, thus safe from scrutiny?
The issue is voters are uneducated. You get compulsory voting you get the same issue with the california prop system scaled out: where people are given a choice and vote on what feels right from the proposition name and two sentence description alone. Research and looking into bias be damned.
No, it's not.
Compulsory voting drives engagement. Representative democracy saves the public from themselves.
The vast majority of people vote for who they trust.
Compulsory voting drives engagement. Representative democracy saves the public from themselves.
The vast majority of people vote for who they trust.
Look at Australia. They have compulsory voting and a government that sells off natural resources to the highest bidder same as many others. Many Australians just get drunk on election day and write in “banana.” You can’t force people to care about something using the law that they don’t already care about.
Rates of informal voting of 5.1 % in the house of reps and 3.4 % in the senate nationally at the most recent federal election put paid to that comment.
With all due respect, I find it hard to believe anyone with any knowledge of Australian elections would write your comment.
With all due respect, I find it hard to believe anyone with any knowledge of Australian elections would write your comment.
To be fair Australia doesn't really have a choice in the matter due to forces outside of the country. Any political leader who tries this doesn't remain leader for very long.
Most of the public is aware of this, and will probably continue to accept it as long as the general standard of living doesn't fall to much.
Most of the public is aware of this, and will probably continue to accept it as long as the general standard of living doesn't fall to much.
> Compulsory voting drives engagement.
Citation needed. I live in a country with compulsory voting, and I don't see any indication that it drives engagement. Lots of people only go voting because they have to. They simply vote for the man or woman they think looks best, or they have seen on TV and said something funny, or stuff like that.
> The vast majority of people vote for who they trust.
But in many many cases without really looking into who is trustworthy.
Citation needed. I live in a country with compulsory voting, and I don't see any indication that it drives engagement. Lots of people only go voting because they have to. They simply vote for the man or woman they think looks best, or they have seen on TV and said something funny, or stuff like that.
> The vast majority of people vote for who they trust.
But in many many cases without really looking into who is trustworthy.
Have you lived in countries without compulsory voting? Have you worked in electoral politics? Would the population be more engaged without compulsory voting? Different countries do not amount to controlled experiments. Brasil, North Korea, Belgium, and Australia are all very different countries. All have compulsory voting.
> But in many many cases without really looking into who is trustworthy.
> They simply vote for the man or woman they think looks best, or they have seen on TV and said something funny, or stuff like that.
These two things are largely linked. If one believes that one can view the true nature of reality and divine the future then one is in for perpetual disappointment with politicians. Trustworthiness can only be known a posteri. A priori we only have heuristics. The reason for the existence of representative democracy is so that politicians do the work of politics.
One may not always agree with the electorate but my experience tells me that compulsory voting does drive engagement. It changes how political parties spend money and who they use that money to try and influence. Engagement in countries with compulsory voting is different to how it would be in the same country without compulsory voting.
The average member of the electorate possesses no expertise in any single field and is ignorant of everything. The average member of the electorate holds no single opinion. This is a good thing.
Whether people's beliefs are right or wrong is one thing but what you don't want is a bunch of radicals (of any persuasion) who have made the leap of faith which prevents them from reversing course. When large proportions of a society is radicalised to hold extremist and exclusive political opinions, that's when voters cannot be convinced. This rarely ends up good for society and occasionally ends violently.
> But in many many cases without really looking into who is trustworthy.
> They simply vote for the man or woman they think looks best, or they have seen on TV and said something funny, or stuff like that.
These two things are largely linked. If one believes that one can view the true nature of reality and divine the future then one is in for perpetual disappointment with politicians. Trustworthiness can only be known a posteri. A priori we only have heuristics. The reason for the existence of representative democracy is so that politicians do the work of politics.
One may not always agree with the electorate but my experience tells me that compulsory voting does drive engagement. It changes how political parties spend money and who they use that money to try and influence. Engagement in countries with compulsory voting is different to how it would be in the same country without compulsory voting.
The average member of the electorate possesses no expertise in any single field and is ignorant of everything. The average member of the electorate holds no single opinion. This is a good thing.
Whether people's beliefs are right or wrong is one thing but what you don't want is a bunch of radicals (of any persuasion) who have made the leap of faith which prevents them from reversing course. When large proportions of a society is radicalised to hold extremist and exclusive political opinions, that's when voters cannot be convinced. This rarely ends up good for society and occasionally ends violently.
As if PG isn't doing the same things on Twitter. I notice both of them are always grovelling to Musk trying to get his retweets or quotes
> It gives the whole incubator, startup scene, etc, a bad name.
And that scene already has a bad name. And let's not forget that he's also an EA acolyte. Every time I think that the image of SV couldn't get much worse, it does.
And that scene already has a bad name. And let's not forget that he's also an EA acolyte. Every time I think that the image of SV couldn't get much worse, it does.
I always hear people use EA as a negative term now. Is there actual philosophical criticism of EA or is this just because SBF subscribed to it?
The actual tweet was a few days ago. I can't believe he wasn't instantly fired. I know firing a CEO is a bit complicated, but this should have warranted a quick response. Has YC even issued a statement? Has Tan apologized?
No repercussions for violent threats to innocent people when made by higherups in SV tech is par for the course nowadays.
Take OpenAI's Head of Research (quite the public role given they're a research company) openly calling for genocide in Gaza, asking to "finish them", "More! No mercy!" including civilians, over a series of 80 deranged tweets. [1] Zero repercussions, still happily heading research at a company whose supposed objective is developing AGI for the benefit of mankind.
Also very quickly scrubbed off of HN [2].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39124666
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20231226171217/https://news.ycom...
Take OpenAI's Head of Research (quite the public role given they're a research company) openly calling for genocide in Gaza, asking to "finish them", "More! No mercy!" including civilians, over a series of 80 deranged tweets. [1] Zero repercussions, still happily heading research at a company whose supposed objective is developing AGI for the benefit of mankind.
Also very quickly scrubbed off of HN [2].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39124666
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20231226171217/https://news.ycom...
"openly calling for genocide in Gaza, asking to "finish them", "More! No mercy!" including civilians"
Can you share a quote, where he literally does that? I only read, that he is talking about Hamas. And explicitely not about civilians.
Can you share a quote, where he literally does that? I only read, that he is talking about Hamas. And explicitely not about civilians.
The post you are responding to linked to the archived tweets.
Yes, but I did not see any of the claims of demanding to kill civilians.
They were still way over the line and he apologized. But I did not see any of the claims of "openly calling for genocide in Gaza". Did you? You may link some quotes then. Possible I missed them, but I rather think, this was the usual hyperbole.
"innocent civilians" was the only questionable phrase, but still not at all a clear demand to kill civilians, rather a doubt whether armed civilians, who want to kill jews, should count as civilians.
They were still way over the line and he apologized. But I did not see any of the claims of "openly calling for genocide in Gaza". Did you? You may link some quotes then. Possible I missed them, but I rather think, this was the usual hyperbole.
"innocent civilians" was the only questionable phrase, but still not at all a clear demand to kill civilians, rather a doubt whether armed civilians, who want to kill jews, should count as civilians.
Wait are you defining all open calls for genocide in Gaza to be the strictly verbatim phrase "I am openly calling for genocide in Gaza"? You are out of your depth here.
Tan has apologized:
>“I apologize to the Board of Supervisors for my comments late last night in a post,” Tan wrote. “There is no place, no excuse and no reason for this type of speech and charged language in discourse. I am sorry for my words and regret my poor decision. I love San Francisco. I know the community will hold me accountable and keep focused on our true mission: making San Francisco a vibrant, prosperous and safe place.”
Having seen him talk on video he seems like a decent guy who is not very good at dealing with conficts. See eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yMc99fpfY&t=630s
>“I apologize to the Board of Supervisors for my comments late last night in a post,” Tan wrote. “There is no place, no excuse and no reason for this type of speech and charged language in discourse. I am sorry for my words and regret my poor decision. I love San Francisco. I know the community will hold me accountable and keep focused on our true mission: making San Francisco a vibrant, prosperous and safe place.”
Having seen him talk on video he seems like a decent guy who is not very good at dealing with conficts. See eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yMc99fpfY&t=630s
No idea, I have a similar thought. But I'm not from America, where people are free to say whatever stupid thing they want, no matter how high stakes their job is.
It is admirable that Gary Tan loves his home in SF so much. And that he is engaged into making SF better. But SF, getting wasted, engaging into politics is not SV.
Wish we could disentangle flies from sausages and move YC office back to Mountain View, where it belongs.
Wish we could disentangle flies from sausages and move YC office back to Mountain View, where it belongs.
They don't want to be involved with politics. But they're the type of people that have agency, and San Francisco is in horrible shape, so they feel compelled to help turn the city around.
San Fran could be turned around in a few years if they cracked down on crime, especially low level crime, homelessness, and revamped zoning laws and regulations to be advantageous to builders instead of NIMBYs.
Right, and since the progressives in power disagree with this, Garry is getting involved to try to get people elected that do agree.
[deleted]
"If those techies don't like SF politics, maybe they should get involved in their local community!"
"No! Not like that!"
"No! Not like that!"
Capitalism runs every aspect of our lives.
It's impossible for commentary from a person who controls a vast amount of capital to not be political.
It's impossible for commentary from a person who controls a vast amount of capital to not be political.
This article is emblematic of everything wrong with "journalism" today. Regardless of what Garry wrote on Twitter (which I'm not defending), he didn't send the letters in question, which are the core of the incident. So some lunatic prints out a tweet and mails it to politicians at their home addresses, and the "journalist" spends a couple thousand words focusing on the tweet, and how the guy who wrote the tweet is rich.
Also, featuring the price of his liquor bottles (prominent in the first article about this by the same writer) is indicative of the level of pettiness involved. Maybe there's an actual story here, but this isn't it, and it's not clear that the story is more than "someone said something regrettable on Twitter".
Also, featuring the price of his liquor bottles (prominent in the first article about this by the same writer) is indicative of the level of pettiness involved. Maybe there's an actual story here, but this isn't it, and it's not clear that the story is more than "someone said something regrettable on Twitter".
No.
When people with power stay things, other people take it as permission to do things that are said or implied in that speech. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...
When people with power stay things, other people take it as permission to do things that are said or implied in that speech. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...
This is a fairly standard and boring way of dressing up censorship as something high-minded.
It's nice that you're familiar with a story from England in 1170, but no, you don't just get automatically blamed in the US when crazy people do things in response to dumb things you said on Twitter.
Regardless, even if you did get blamed, missionlocal is not the impartial jury who gets to decide whether or not quoting 2pac is incitement to violence.
It's nice that you're familiar with a story from England in 1170, but no, you don't just get automatically blamed in the US when crazy people do things in response to dumb things you said on Twitter.
Regardless, even if you did get blamed, missionlocal is not the impartial jury who gets to decide whether or not quoting 2pac is incitement to violence.
Sigh. Please read the article more carefully. missionlocal explicitly says it is not incitement to violence. Here are three paragraphs from it:
---
But tying this potential legislation to the message Tan communicated to his 408,000 Twitter followers would appear to be a serious legal challenge: 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.
Under Penal Code 422, a person making a criminal threat must harbor “specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat…”
“It is offensive, but it is speech protected by the First Amendment,” said Berkeley School of Law dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “It does not meet the standard for incitement.”
---
"This is a fairly standard and boring way of dressing up censorship as something high-minded."
Do you think that speech is not an act? That speech does not have any consequences in the world, and so should be free from all restriction? That's certainly not the law in the US, and you seem to be aware of incitement to violence.
"missionlocal is not the impartial jury who gets to decide whether or not quoting 2pac is incitement to violence."
Please quote where missionlocal decides that is incitement to violence. You are accusing missionlocal of hack journalism where it is simply reporting what happened. You may not think Garry Tan should get heat for doing what he did, but you should not place your ire on the journalists who are reporting what is by any reasonable definition a story within their purview.
---
But tying this potential legislation to the message Tan communicated to his 408,000 Twitter followers would appear to be a serious legal challenge: 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.
Under Penal Code 422, a person making a criminal threat must harbor “specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat…”
“It is offensive, but it is speech protected by the First Amendment,” said Berkeley School of Law dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “It does not meet the standard for incitement.”
---
"This is a fairly standard and boring way of dressing up censorship as something high-minded."
Do you think that speech is not an act? That speech does not have any consequences in the world, and so should be free from all restriction? That's certainly not the law in the US, and you seem to be aware of incitement to violence.
"missionlocal is not the impartial jury who gets to decide whether or not quoting 2pac is incitement to violence."
Please quote where missionlocal decides that is incitement to violence. You are accusing missionlocal of hack journalism where it is simply reporting what happened. You may not think Garry Tan should get heat for doing what he did, but you should not place your ire on the journalists who are reporting what is by any reasonable definition a story within their purview.
> You are accusing missionlocal of hack journalism where it is simply reporting what happened.
I am not saying that they're hack journalists because they literally accused Tan of incitement to violence (that would probably be libel). I'm saying they're hacks because the article (and the prior one) were full of irrelevant details about Tan, while ignoring nearly all of the details about the actual incident. Tan is not the core of the story, unless you've lost all perspective on your job as a journalist.
It's like reporting on a robbery, but making most of your article about Karl Marx because the criminal was reading a copy of Das Kapital. The only way you get to that point is to blame Marx for the actions of the criminal.
Some unhinged person sent a threat of violence to politicians, using Tan's tweet. That is the story. Tan's liquor cabinet, his history of political donations, his wealth...all of that is irrelevant.
I am not saying that they're hack journalists because they literally accused Tan of incitement to violence (that would probably be libel). I'm saying they're hacks because the article (and the prior one) were full of irrelevant details about Tan, while ignoring nearly all of the details about the actual incident. Tan is not the core of the story, unless you've lost all perspective on your job as a journalist.
It's like reporting on a robbery, but making most of your article about Karl Marx because the criminal was reading a copy of Das Kapital. The only way you get to that point is to blame Marx for the actions of the criminal.
Some unhinged person sent a threat of violence to politicians, using Tan's tweet. That is the story. Tan's liquor cabinet, his history of political donations, his wealth...all of that is irrelevant.
> Do you think that speech is not an act? That speech does not have any consequences in the world, and so should be free from all restriction?
YES
(Other than incitement of violence and libel)
YES
(Other than incitement of violence and libel)
It's not some obscure story. T.S. Eliot wrote an entire play about the martyrdom of Thomas Becket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_Cathedral
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_Cathedral
Indeed, though I suspect many might first have learnt of it watching Blackadder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rNopZDwahg
Or the Richard Burton/Peter O'Toole movie "Becket" (1964)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057877/
> It's nice that you're familiar with a story from England in 1170, but no, you don't just get automatically blamed in the US when crazy people do things in response to dumb things you said on Twitter.
It's called stochastic terrorism you dense moron
It's called stochastic terrorism you dense moron
> everything wrong with "journalism" today
Mission Local is one of the best sources of local San Francisco news, especially anything directly relevant to the Mission District.
If rich jerks don't want to be called out by local journalists, they shouldn't post unhinged public death threats, even as a "joke" or "song reference".
Mission Local is one of the best sources of local San Francisco news, especially anything directly relevant to the Mission District.
If rich jerks don't want to be called out by local journalists, they shouldn't post unhinged public death threats, even as a "joke" or "song reference".
> Mission Local is one of the best sources of local San Francisco news
OK. Maybe their coverage of potholes is fantastic, but this article is a terrible, obviously partisan hack job. Both things can be true.
OK. Maybe their coverage of potholes is fantastic, but this article is a terrible, obviously partisan hack job. Both things can be true.
I think your own "partisanship" is coloring your reading of a fairly neutral and factual article. Mission Local regularly publishes stories which are (implicitly or explicitly) critical of the supervisors Tan was threatening here.
I have no idea if missionlocal is partisan, but this article is obviously partisan -- it brings in a bunch of irrelevant factors (e.g. the value of Garry's liquor collection) into a story that boils down to "someone said a thing on Twitter that was bad and offensive, while drunk, and someone else took an obviously unhinged action in result".
It's the easiest thing in the world to report this in a neutral, factual way. You don't need to focus on Gary's money, his association to tech, his liquor cabinet, or anything else. That the reporter(s) could not do this speaks volumes about their motivations.
Aside from that, I have no dog in this particular fight. I haven't lived in SF in years, and if you're insinuating that I'm on a particular side of the political spectrum, you're way over your skis. Partisan doesn't have to mean "left" or "right", by the way...you can just be partisan against tech.
It's the easiest thing in the world to report this in a neutral, factual way. You don't need to focus on Gary's money, his association to tech, his liquor cabinet, or anything else. That the reporter(s) could not do this speaks volumes about their motivations.
Aside from that, I have no dog in this particular fight. I haven't lived in SF in years, and if you're insinuating that I'm on a particular side of the political spectrum, you're way over your skis. Partisan doesn't have to mean "left" or "right", by the way...you can just be partisan against tech.
Here's the text of the article directly:
> During his online tirade, Tan posted photos of his private liquor stash, and indicated to a fellow Twitter-user that he was inebriated.
Describing the tweets adjacent to the offensive one gives useful context. This is not the reporter dredging up some irrelevant trivia from deep in Tan's past or something.
Readers might not know who Tan is. It is even more essential context to explain that:
> Garry Tan, the CEO of Y Combinator and a heavy campaign donor to efforts to oust progressive politicians [...]
> Tan is a well-heeled donor for San Francisco’s moderate causes and candidates. He sits on the board of Grow SF, a political pressure group favoring moderate causes and candidates and targeting progressives. Tan gave more than $100,000 to the 2022 campaign to recall then-District Attorney Chesa Boudin. He gave at least $20,000 to the 2021 school board recall, too.
If Tan was just some random person with no influence and no relation to SF politics this would probably not be much of a story. That he is one of the major donors to the political rivals of these supervisors is the reason this is a political shitstorm. Tan's tweet damages the reputation of his "Grow SF" group and the candidates they support, and has possible further political implications:
> Peskin today asked the City Attorney’s Office to look into requiring public disclosures from recipients of political donations from “purveyors of hate and violence.”
> During his online tirade, Tan posted photos of his private liquor stash, and indicated to a fellow Twitter-user that he was inebriated.
Describing the tweets adjacent to the offensive one gives useful context. This is not the reporter dredging up some irrelevant trivia from deep in Tan's past or something.
Readers might not know who Tan is. It is even more essential context to explain that:
> Garry Tan, the CEO of Y Combinator and a heavy campaign donor to efforts to oust progressive politicians [...]
> Tan is a well-heeled donor for San Francisco’s moderate causes and candidates. He sits on the board of Grow SF, a political pressure group favoring moderate causes and candidates and targeting progressives. Tan gave more than $100,000 to the 2022 campaign to recall then-District Attorney Chesa Boudin. He gave at least $20,000 to the 2021 school board recall, too.
If Tan was just some random person with no influence and no relation to SF politics this would probably not be much of a story. That he is one of the major donors to the political rivals of these supervisors is the reason this is a political shitstorm. Tan's tweet damages the reputation of his "Grow SF" group and the candidates they support, and has possible further political implications:
> Peskin today asked the City Attorney’s Office to look into requiring public disclosures from recipients of political donations from “purveyors of hate and violence.”
Mission Local is not “fairly neutral”. They are very closely aligned with certain SF politicians and their “news” coverage shows that.
This article is anything but neutral (not that I don’t think Tan screwed up here).
This article is anything but neutral (not that I don’t think Tan screwed up here).
You don't need to know anything about the political alignment of anybody to know that a person wishing a politician would die is legal political speech in America, and not even an uncommon sort of it. This sort of thing is regularly said by Americans of all political persuasions about politicians in any and every political party. The article is making a mountain out of a molehill.
For my part, I hope Trump dies painfully, as well as every other living American president (with the sole exception of Jimmy Carter who was a terrible president but a good man nevertheless.) If you live in America, I know you frequently hear people saying they wish X Y or Z politician would die. Such harsh sentiments are commonly expressed in American society. It's a free country and lots of people exercise that freedom with inflammatory but legal hot takes like that.
For my part, I hope Trump dies painfully, as well as every other living American president (with the sole exception of Jimmy Carter who was a terrible president but a good man nevertheless.) If you live in America, I know you frequently hear people saying they wish X Y or Z politician would die. Such harsh sentiments are commonly expressed in American society. It's a free country and lots of people exercise that freedom with inflammatory but legal hot takes like that.
I think everyone agrees that Tan's speech is protected by the First Amendment. As is strong criticism of his speech. No one is proposing Tan should be fined or thrown in jail or have his rights curtailed by the government.
It is not normal and should not be normal for major political donors to make public death threats to local officials in the city where they live, even as a joke. It's toxic and corrosive to society and politics, and makes him seem unhinged. Tan is rightly getting excoriated, and he deserves scorn from his own political allies for significantly damaging their common causes.
Tan keeps complaining about SF politics being frustrating, but in my opinion, as someone who supports a significant portion of his policy platform, local politics would be improved if Tan would just move somewhere else or shut up and keep his money to himself and leave political discussions to the grown ups.
It is not normal and should not be normal for major political donors to make public death threats to local officials in the city where they live, even as a joke. It's toxic and corrosive to society and politics, and makes him seem unhinged. Tan is rightly getting excoriated, and he deserves scorn from his own political allies for significantly damaging their common causes.
Tan keeps complaining about SF politics being frustrating, but in my opinion, as someone who supports a significant portion of his policy platform, local politics would be improved if Tan would just move somewhere else or shut up and keep his money to himself and leave political discussions to the grown ups.
If local politicians don't want jerks (rich or otherwise) talking shit about them, they picked the wrong profession in the wrong country.
If you are a leader in some capacity, you have degrees of responsibility for things that happen because you rile up your followers.
Clearly Garry’s fans are threatening violence here as a direct consequence of Garry’s intentional targeting and signalling here. I don’t follow at all how the journalistic angle is problematic
Clearly Garry’s fans are threatening violence here as a direct consequence of Garry’s intentional targeting and signalling here. I don’t follow at all how the journalistic angle is problematic
I would kindly suggest that this is at best wrong, at worst deliberately misleading
The job of journalists is to report news worth events, and provide extra context with some level of verification.
When the CEO quotes rap lyrics which implies that someone should kill them selves, that is news worthy.
The CEO, who is in a position of both power and responsibility, should really not be saying stupid shit. Why? because the job of the CEO is to make sure a company's image isn't tarnished. (see Gerald Ratner).
Tan should frankly grow the fuck up and do what CEOs normally do, which is pay local politics to change.
The job of journalists is to report news worth events, and provide extra context with some level of verification.
When the CEO quotes rap lyrics which implies that someone should kill them selves, that is news worthy.
The CEO, who is in a position of both power and responsibility, should really not be saying stupid shit. Why? because the job of the CEO is to make sure a company's image isn't tarnished. (see Gerald Ratner).
Tan should frankly grow the fuck up and do what CEOs normally do, which is pay local politics to change.
> which implies that someone should kill them selves
How does the sentence "die slow motherfuckers" even remotely imply someone should kill themselves? Do you see the irony of misquoting him in a comment about misleading journalism?
Necessary disclaimer: I do not support the tweet and it has nothing to do with my comment, so breathe and understand my point before hitting that down-vote.
How does the sentence "die slow motherfuckers" even remotely imply someone should kill themselves? Do you see the irony of misquoting him in a comment about misleading journalism?
Necessary disclaimer: I do not support the tweet and it has nothing to do with my comment, so breathe and understand my point before hitting that down-vote.
If we are being pedantic, then "kill themselves" would have been the wrong clause. I would probably change that to "publicly wish death upon someone".
If we are also continuing along pedantry, it was a quote, it was an incorrect assertion.
But what we can possibly agree on, is that whilst we are both engaging on this particular point, the more important issue of a CEO acting incorrectly goes unexplored.
Where I think we are both aligned: the CEO is perfectly within their rights to say stupid things, however they really shouldn't. Whilst we shouldn't use legal tools to stop CEOs doing stupid things, we certainly should use social tools to encourage them to respect other people.
If we are also continuing along pedantry, it was a quote, it was an incorrect assertion.
But what we can possibly agree on, is that whilst we are both engaging on this particular point, the more important issue of a CEO acting incorrectly goes unexplored.
Where I think we are both aligned: the CEO is perfectly within their rights to say stupid things, however they really shouldn't. Whilst we shouldn't use legal tools to stop CEOs doing stupid things, we certainly should use social tools to encourage them to respect other people.
> If we are being pedantic
> If we are also continuing along pedantry
We're not being pedantic, we're being correct and honest.
> If we are also continuing along pedantry
We're not being pedantic, we're being correct and honest.
>it's not clear that the story is more than "someone said something regrettable on Twitter".
This is a good point. Who is to say if there is a difference between receiving hateful letters to one’s home and not receiving hateful letters to one’s home?
This is bad journalism because it is a report of events that happened, good journalism would have been a levelheaded piece about how Tan is probably a good guy and we should probably agree with his politics
This is a good point. Who is to say if there is a difference between receiving hateful letters to one’s home and not receiving hateful letters to one’s home?
This is bad journalism because it is a report of events that happened, good journalism would have been a levelheaded piece about how Tan is probably a good guy and we should probably agree with his politics
Came here to voice my frustration about the muddying of the waters and the quality of this article. Took me a few minutes of cynical reading to understand that he did not send the letters, someone else did.
>Took me a few minutes of cynical reading to understand that he did not send the letters
It didn't take me that. I knew it within moments of reading the article and it seems the vast majority of readers didn't have this problem.
It didn't take me that. I knew it within moments of reading the article and it seems the vast majority of readers didn't have this problem.
Yeah, it sure wasn't obvious from the very first thing on the page where it says the letter started with "Garry Tan was right", I'm surprised you were able to figure it out after just a few minutes.
If your very public words can be mailed to someone and mistaken as a fairly death threat to them do you A) Rethink your life or B) Retreat to how this is not technically a death threat and you did not technically send it to them?
In America, it is a legal and popular pass-time to wish politicians would die.
[deleted]
You've chosen option 2, good for you!
If I say that your argument is counter to the principles of a free society, does that count as a death threat because some unhinged militia type might agree with me then shoot you down in the street?
There's no argument, just a moral judgement, that's the great part. So, in that case, no!
Por que no los dos?
I'm not certain that Twitter is an exempt place when it comes to threatening statements. You don't have to send it to the person in question in many cases.
[deleted]
This comment is everything wrong with media literacy. It's absolutely worthwhile to cover highly public calls to violence of government officials by respected individuals with lots of power and the article makes it clear he personally did not send the letters. But denying that public calls to violence spurs actual violence is denial of basic cause and effect.
> It's absolutely worthwhile to cover highly public calls to violence of government officials by respected individuals with lots of power
I mean, sure...who are you arguing with? I didn't say nobody should cover this. I said this article is terrible.
> But denying that public calls to violence spurs actual violence is denial of basic cause and effect.
Yeah, except we have laws around this concept, and even if what you're saying were true in the US (it isn't, thankfully), it doesn't magicaly make hack journalism good.
Said differently, "incitement to violence" doesn't mean that missionlocal is high-minded and mature for spending two articles talking about the price of his liquor.
I mean, sure...who are you arguing with? I didn't say nobody should cover this. I said this article is terrible.
> But denying that public calls to violence spurs actual violence is denial of basic cause and effect.
Yeah, except we have laws around this concept, and even if what you're saying were true in the US (it isn't, thankfully), it doesn't magicaly make hack journalism good.
Said differently, "incitement to violence" doesn't mean that missionlocal is high-minded and mature for spending two articles talking about the price of his liquor.
> Said differently, "incitement to violence" doesn't mean that missionlocal is high-minded and mature for spending two articles talking about the price of his liquor.
Garry Tan chose to flaunt the high-end liquor bottles and "Twitter menace" plaque ahead of his sort-of-apology, not missionlocal.
Only one of the articles (not the one linked) refers to them at all. The other one focuses more on the hate mail some idiot decided to send being a screenshot of Tan's original tweet, and both of them are pretty clear about it being a rap lyric.
Kind of hard to argue with a straight face that the real problem with the YC CEO acting like a not-very-smart bro influencer even in his sort-of-apology is that some local rag journalist didn't spare the embarrassing detail.
Sure, Tan was probably more interested in highlighting the "twitter menace" plaque than the fairly expensive liquor and unremarkably-priced wine, but celebrities flaunting wealth with a laughing emoji as a "fuck you" to their critics is a well established trope, and I don't think high-minded, mature journalism is about taking the most sympathetic interpretation possible of bro silliness.
Garry Tan chose to flaunt the high-end liquor bottles and "Twitter menace" plaque ahead of his sort-of-apology, not missionlocal.
Only one of the articles (not the one linked) refers to them at all. The other one focuses more on the hate mail some idiot decided to send being a screenshot of Tan's original tweet, and both of them are pretty clear about it being a rap lyric.
Kind of hard to argue with a straight face that the real problem with the YC CEO acting like a not-very-smart bro influencer even in his sort-of-apology is that some local rag journalist didn't spare the embarrassing detail.
Sure, Tan was probably more interested in highlighting the "twitter menace" plaque than the fairly expensive liquor and unremarkably-priced wine, but celebrities flaunting wealth with a laughing emoji as a "fuck you" to their critics is a well established trope, and I don't think high-minded, mature journalism is about taking the most sympathetic interpretation possible of bro silliness.
> not-very-smart bro influencer
Is this really necessary? Let he who has made no mistakes (particularly when drunk) cast the first stone.
Is this really necessary? Let he who has made no mistakes (particularly when drunk) cast the first stone.
More necessary than the sneer quotes you applied to the "journalist", yes. If I say dumb stuff when drunk and then muff the initial apology (when presumably sober) I wouldn't expect people to sugar coat it either.
Garry clearly isn't too stupid or desperate for clicks to do any better, and so I'm afraid I'm going to have to continue to disagree that we should save our ridicule for his critics.
Garry clearly isn't too stupid or desperate for clicks to do any better, and so I'm afraid I'm going to have to continue to disagree that we should save our ridicule for his critics.
I stand by the "sneer quotes". Having actually taken journalism classes in my life, I would be ashamed to put my name to that article.
[deleted]
The article is perfectly clear about what happened.
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...
Stochastic terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...
Stochastic terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism
"Stochastic terrorism" is just an excuse to crack down on free speech by conflating harsh criticism with violence because deranged idiots exist who might take any criticism of anybody as divine inspiration to commit crimes.
The standard for free speech in America is that if you're not calling for imminent and specific violence, then you're in the clear. The stochastic in stochastic terrorism does away with both the imminence and specificity; with a large enough population you'll have enough nuts that some of them may take even the most mellow criticism as a call to action.
The standard for free speech in America is that if you're not calling for imminent and specific violence, then you're in the clear. The stochastic in stochastic terrorism does away with both the imminence and specificity; with a large enough population you'll have enough nuts that some of them may take even the most mellow criticism as a call to action.
> The standard for free speech in America is that if you're not calling for imminent and specific violence, then you're in the clear.
Legally, yes. Socially? That's never been the standard. There is no principle in the US that says everybody has to be cool with anything people say short of calling for imminent violence.
Legally, yes. Socially? That's never been the standard. There is no principle in the US that says everybody has to be cool with anything people say short of calling for imminent violence.
Calling something stochastic terrorism is speech... by your own logic, shouldn't you be defending their free-speech rights to use the term stochastic terrorism?
You say "crack down" but it's just an online comment here, which should be protected, right?
You say "crack down" but it's just an online comment here, which should be protected, right?
Free speech doesn't imply not being questioned or corrected, but I understand that some have that impression in these times. But that is exactly what free speech is, you speak, someone replies, you may have more to say, and so it goes.
"Die slow" or "I hope you die" are not threats. It's unconstructive venting.
"Die slow" or "I hope you die" are not threats. It's unconstructive venting.
> Free speech doesn't imply not being questioned or corrected
Right. That's why the post I responded to shouldn't object to calling this "stochastic terrorism" on the basis of free speech. In the immediate discussion the argument is inherently self-contradictory.
It also muddies the meaning of free-speech from a profound principle to a cheap argument to club people with online when they criticize something in a way you disagree with.
Right. That's why the post I responded to shouldn't object to calling this "stochastic terrorism" on the basis of free speech. In the immediate discussion the argument is inherently self-contradictory.
It also muddies the meaning of free-speech from a profound principle to a cheap argument to club people with online when they criticize something in a way you disagree with.
OP for that comment is arguing for free speech not against, you're misunderstanding the comment.
> "Stochastic terrorism" is just an excuse to crack down on free speech
Implying the term is used to prevent free speech, and not trying to prevent the use of the term. I don't even understand how it's not obvious.
> "Stochastic terrorism" is just an excuse to crack down on free speech
Implying the term is used to prevent free speech, and not trying to prevent the use of the term. I don't even understand how it's not obvious.
> ...not trying to prevent the use of the term. I don't even understand how it's not obvious.
The post says it's just an excuse to crack down on free speech, suggesting that it has no validity as an actual idea, that the term itself is invalid. Arguing that a term is always wrong is surely an attempt to prevent the use of that term.
What's more important to free speech.., that people can use the term "stochastic terrorism" to describe a tweet where they think it fits, or that people should not have to be subjected to having their tweets called "stochastic terrorism"?
To me, it's pretty clear: if you're trying to police language, you shouldn't be using free speech as the justification for that.
The post says it's just an excuse to crack down on free speech, suggesting that it has no validity as an actual idea, that the term itself is invalid. Arguing that a term is always wrong is surely an attempt to prevent the use of that term.
What's more important to free speech.., that people can use the term "stochastic terrorism" to describe a tweet where they think it fits, or that people should not have to be subjected to having their tweets called "stochastic terrorism"?
To me, it's pretty clear: if you're trying to police language, you shouldn't be using free speech as the justification for that.
It's quite telling that you don't seem to understand that someone might dislike some speech yet not want to ban it
You're bending over backwards to prove a point that's not there, but I don't care enough to go in circles forever.
I have not advocated for people calling something stochastic terrorism to be brought up on charges, so blow it out your ass.
> "Stochastic terrorism" is just an excuse to crack down on free speech by conflating harsh criticism with violence
"Die slow motherfuckers" is harsh criticism?
"Die slow motherfuckers" is harsh criticism?
As far as criticism goes, it takes some creative effort to get much harsher than that. It is far beyond constructive criticism; the target is asserted to be far past salvaging so the only good thing that could happen to them is a bad death.
I guess maybe you think it isn't criticism at all because it's not constructive criticism. But it's certainly criticism, no reasonable person could construe it as anything less than critical. And because it falls short of a specific and imminent threat, it's legal political speech.
I guess maybe you think it isn't criticism at all because it's not constructive criticism. But it's certainly criticism, no reasonable person could construe it as anything less than critical. And because it falls short of a specific and imminent threat, it's legal political speech.
Stochastic terrorism is such a dangerous and nebulous concept. It itself can be considered stochastic terrorism. People become afraid of stochastic terrorism and start to terrorize people whom they don't like. Or can't we say that Garry Tan wrote his tweet only because of what the politicians had done? Aren't they also stochastic terrorists if he is?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. It's not nebulous at all, it in fact describes a very specific approach, to the point that it might as well be a playbook.
Part 1 is a radicalization chain, where you have several layers of public figures with varying levels of public-facing support for your cause, who guide people down the chain by platforming people with more extreme public-facing views. So maybe a talk show host who mostly just points out obvious problems in our society, who occasionally brings on guest speakers who have slightly more specific framings, who themselves occasionally publicly support YouTube channels that pitch potential solutions.
Part 2 is consensus building. As people trickle down the radicalization chain, it's important to introduce them to new social spaces that present your ideas as obvious truths. This normalizes your radical ideas in the minds of your newly radicalized cohort. Casual "joking but not joking" comments are a basic staple of this, with guillotine memes and blackpill posting and Boogaloo jokes all serving to make the appearance to their community that their extreme views are normal, acceptable, and widely held.
Part 3 (which is somewhat optional) is targeting. Some prominent figure (likely one of those public figures on your radicalization chain) paints a far less vague target than usual: casually calling for people to kill all landlords is one thing, mentioning one specific landlord is a clear escalation from that. Ideally this is done without making any incriminating statements, which at least in the US is easy: as long as your don't make a specific plan, it's typically considered protected speech.
Part 4 is, to borrow some specifically leftist terminology, "propaganda of the deed", "direct action", or just "terrorism". With a sufficiently large pool of radicalized individuals, you'll have people all across the radicalization and "unhingedness" spectra. The "extremely radicalized, completely unhinged" corner is where you find your martyrs, freedom fighters, etc. They hear the targeting speech from part 3, and decide to take it upon themselves to do something about it. They commit some act of violence, and probably end up facing some extreme consequences for it, whether that means death, imprisonment, etc. Then, your entire movement needs to achieve 2 things: outwardly distance themselves from the "lone wolf" to avoid unwanted scrutiny or consequences, while privately lionizing them as someone who "did what needed to be done" in order to encourage the next one.
The elegant thing about all this is that what it lacks in cohesion, it makes up for in robustness. Since it's not a rigidly fixed organization, individual parts can take a fall without crippling the effectiveness of the whole. One lone wolf doesn't incriminate any other members, except maybe the person who announced the target, if they were sloppy about how they worded it. And if someone along your radicalization chain loses their seat in the public eye for whatever reason, you have plenty of redundancy to fill the gap, and they can probably find a comfortable position somewhere further along the chain once things cool off a bit.
Playing whack-a-mole with the people with enough prominence to plausibly select targets is probably the most legally justifiable way of suppressing a standalone complex like this. Most people along the chain, both participants and consumers, are pretty clearly practicing free speech and assembly. They make perfectly legitimate targets for rival radical movements, but the State needs to uphold basic human rights, so it takes a more precise approach. Focusing on the shotcallers, it's easier (not necessarily easy) to get creative with what constitutes a non-protected "true threat", rather than crack down on civil liberties as a whole.
Part 1 is a radicalization chain, where you have several layers of public figures with varying levels of public-facing support for your cause, who guide people down the chain by platforming people with more extreme public-facing views. So maybe a talk show host who mostly just points out obvious problems in our society, who occasionally brings on guest speakers who have slightly more specific framings, who themselves occasionally publicly support YouTube channels that pitch potential solutions.
Part 2 is consensus building. As people trickle down the radicalization chain, it's important to introduce them to new social spaces that present your ideas as obvious truths. This normalizes your radical ideas in the minds of your newly radicalized cohort. Casual "joking but not joking" comments are a basic staple of this, with guillotine memes and blackpill posting and Boogaloo jokes all serving to make the appearance to their community that their extreme views are normal, acceptable, and widely held.
Part 3 (which is somewhat optional) is targeting. Some prominent figure (likely one of those public figures on your radicalization chain) paints a far less vague target than usual: casually calling for people to kill all landlords is one thing, mentioning one specific landlord is a clear escalation from that. Ideally this is done without making any incriminating statements, which at least in the US is easy: as long as your don't make a specific plan, it's typically considered protected speech.
Part 4 is, to borrow some specifically leftist terminology, "propaganda of the deed", "direct action", or just "terrorism". With a sufficiently large pool of radicalized individuals, you'll have people all across the radicalization and "unhingedness" spectra. The "extremely radicalized, completely unhinged" corner is where you find your martyrs, freedom fighters, etc. They hear the targeting speech from part 3, and decide to take it upon themselves to do something about it. They commit some act of violence, and probably end up facing some extreme consequences for it, whether that means death, imprisonment, etc. Then, your entire movement needs to achieve 2 things: outwardly distance themselves from the "lone wolf" to avoid unwanted scrutiny or consequences, while privately lionizing them as someone who "did what needed to be done" in order to encourage the next one.
The elegant thing about all this is that what it lacks in cohesion, it makes up for in robustness. Since it's not a rigidly fixed organization, individual parts can take a fall without crippling the effectiveness of the whole. One lone wolf doesn't incriminate any other members, except maybe the person who announced the target, if they were sloppy about how they worded it. And if someone along your radicalization chain loses their seat in the public eye for whatever reason, you have plenty of redundancy to fill the gap, and they can probably find a comfortable position somewhere further along the chain once things cool off a bit.
Playing whack-a-mole with the people with enough prominence to plausibly select targets is probably the most legally justifiable way of suppressing a standalone complex like this. Most people along the chain, both participants and consumers, are pretty clearly practicing free speech and assembly. They make perfectly legitimate targets for rival radical movements, but the State needs to uphold basic human rights, so it takes a more precise approach. Focusing on the shotcallers, it's easier (not necessarily easy) to get creative with what constitutes a non-protected "true threat", rather than crack down on civil liberties as a whole.
What you describe is just politics with some violence involved. If you replace “terrorism” with “voting at elections”, you basically describe every electoral movement whatsoever. Calling that “stochastic whatever” seems like pseudo-intellectualism for people who get impressed by math words.
The term stochastic terrorism (as it is used in literature, as far as I know, eg in “The Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism”) is simpler. It means that someone sends a message into mass media with an intention to motivate someone to commit an act of terror. That’s all. The intention part quickly got buried by the users of the term, at least on the Internet (what’s the difference if the outcome is the same, amiright?), so now it just means any mean tweet that can motivate a random nut job to do something crazy, as is demonstrated by the comment I replied to.
The term stochastic terrorism (as it is used in literature, as far as I know, eg in “The Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism”) is simpler. It means that someone sends a message into mass media with an intention to motivate someone to commit an act of terror. That’s all. The intention part quickly got buried by the users of the term, at least on the Internet (what’s the difference if the outcome is the same, amiright?), so now it just means any mean tweet that can motivate a random nut job to do something crazy, as is demonstrated by the comment I replied to.
The radicalized pool is important in the context. If I, Joe-Blow Nobody send out a tweet saying "Bob from accounting is a dick, somebody should deal with that", there's no real threat there. By far the most likely person to do anything about that is me, and if I don't, it's basically a guarantee that nobody will.
If instead, I'm a respected member of a political movement with a pool of radicals, and my target is a rival to my political movement, and I target the radicalized members of my political movement with a call for violence by relying on the movement's normalized justifications for violence, then there is a much, much greater chance of someone rising to the call.
If instead, I'm a respected member of a political movement with a pool of radicals, and my target is a rival to my political movement, and I target the radicalized members of my political movement with a call for violence by relying on the movement's normalized justifications for violence, then there is a much, much greater chance of someone rising to the call.
Is it important whether the group was radicalised by Joe-Blow Nobody or Bob from accounting himself?
I doubt this CEO had any intent to actually cause harm to these people, which is often what's implied by stochastic terrorism.
Yeah, he merely quoted a diss track that famously escalated a previous grudge to murder. Who could ascribe anything but jovial intent to that? Why should somebody as famous as Gary Tan expect to have unhinged followers who could be inspired to act?
Seems like he was hoping to get his twitter followers to harass them in a manner similar to the way he did -- otherwise why tweet it?
Probably receiving death threats causes a lot of real anxiety (not just the PC snowflake kind). That's a lot better than an actual assassination, but it's not nothing either.
Probably receiving death threats causes a lot of real anxiety (not just the PC snowflake kind). That's a lot better than an actual assassination, but it's not nothing either.
> Seems like he was hoping to get his twitter followers to harass them in a manner similar to the way he did -- otherwise why tweet it?
People often say things just to express themselves rather than for any planned and considered reason.
I greatly doubt the plan was to cause harassment. The gains are extremely low and this could cost him his job.
People often say things just to express themselves rather than for any planned and considered reason.
I greatly doubt the plan was to cause harassment. The gains are extremely low and this could cost him his job.
> People often say things just to express themselves rather than for any planned and considered reason.
Sure, but you don't have to express yourself on twitter... you do that when you want to communicate something to all your followers.
> ...The gains are extremely low and this could cost him his job.
That's true of the tweet by itself. If sober reason was going to hold him back there would be no tweet at all.
Sure, but you don't have to express yourself on twitter... you do that when you want to communicate something to all your followers.
> ...The gains are extremely low and this could cost him his job.
That's true of the tweet by itself. If sober reason was going to hold him back there would be no tweet at all.
> you do that when you want to communicate something to all your followers.
Or you do it automatically and habitually. The brain to mouth filter and a brain to keyboard filter are similar, many people don't have either.
Or you do it automatically and habitually. The brain to mouth filter and a brain to keyboard filter are similar, many people don't have either.
> I doubt this CEO had any intent to actually cause harm to these people
He expressed a strong desire for these people to die a slow death. How is that not intending to cause harm?
He expressed a strong desire for these people to die a slow death. How is that not intending to cause harm?
I think the point is when prominent figures say these things, whack-jobs feel emboldened.
It happened with Trump, who more or less seemed to know he was provoking something dark. Other public figures ought to have more care with their language.
It happened with Trump, who more or less seemed to know he was provoking something dark. Other public figures ought to have more care with their language.
What part of the article isn't factual?
Society and the victims are lucky that the letters are the core of the incident. Tan incited some lunatic to send IRL mail with a printout of the tweet to their home address, we're fortunate that he didn't incite some lunatic to send IRL bullets to the home address.
A wealthy, powerful, influential celebrity figure saying something 'regrettable' on Twitter often has real-world consequences. If he'd posted a tweet that read something like "Upload a picture of you assassinating so-and-so and a Bitcoin address and I will send you $100k" and someone followed those instructions, that would be conspiracy to commit murder. If he'd posted "I feel that so-and-so's politics are misguided" that's totally reasonable free speech.
There's also a question of scale or exposure. We legally define rights by qualitative analyses. I feel strongly that as technology increases the power of an individual that quantitative analyses are relevant too. If someone's speech will be broadcasted to 400,000 or 40,000,000 followers, that's one thing, if it's said privately to 4 friends that's completely different.
Somewhere in the middle of these things there's a line between right and wrong. I'm quite confident that telling an audience of 400,000 that you want a few named people to "Die slow motherfuckers" is on the wrong side of that line.
A wealthy, powerful, influential celebrity figure saying something 'regrettable' on Twitter often has real-world consequences. If he'd posted a tweet that read something like "Upload a picture of you assassinating so-and-so and a Bitcoin address and I will send you $100k" and someone followed those instructions, that would be conspiracy to commit murder. If he'd posted "I feel that so-and-so's politics are misguided" that's totally reasonable free speech.
There's also a question of scale or exposure. We legally define rights by qualitative analyses. I feel strongly that as technology increases the power of an individual that quantitative analyses are relevant too. If someone's speech will be broadcasted to 400,000 or 40,000,000 followers, that's one thing, if it's said privately to 4 friends that's completely different.
Somewhere in the middle of these things there's a line between right and wrong. I'm quite confident that telling an audience of 400,000 that you want a few named people to "Die slow motherfuckers" is on the wrong side of that line.
>I'm quite confident that telling an audience of 400,000 that you want a few named people to "Die slow motherfuckers" is on the wrong side of that line.
Then why are we trusting the person to make a rational choice? By that logic, X should simply disallow using certain words when your audience is > 400,000. Because anyone can get incited for violence when they read certain words as you claim.
Then why are we trusting the person to make a rational choice? By that logic, X should simply disallow using certain words when your audience is > 400,000. Because anyone can get incited for violence when they read certain words as you claim.
None of your criticisms make sense to me, this is some of the best local journalism I've seen in a while. The headline is a tl;dr of the entire piece and the first several paragraphs are the facts directly related to the incident and providing essential context. Nothing is sensationalized, there's no sob angle, and they even corrected a minor inaccuracy. The way you describe it is like it's a tabloid covering some nothingburger, but this is a clean summary of an important event: people are threatening SF supervisors, and it's a result of a drunken Twitter rant by Gary Tan. This is what is happening, and this is what the article describes in clear and direct language.
What else could you even want from this article? That they just elide the liquor angle? That they don't cover it at all or spend the entire article analyzing the person who sent the threats? A person in power wished death on a political figure, and people acted on that wish. This is absolutely news worthy of an article in a local blog, whose beat overlaps with the political jurisdiction of the threatened politicians.
What else could you even want from this article? That they just elide the liquor angle? That they don't cover it at all or spend the entire article analyzing the person who sent the threats? A person in power wished death on a political figure, and people acted on that wish. This is absolutely news worthy of an article in a local blog, whose beat overlaps with the political jurisdiction of the threatened politicians.
Being drunk is not an excuse for abuse, so why are we allowing Tan to step away from this because he was drunk? Clearly, Tan would benefit from some introspection and perhaps therapy. We need to hold our leaders to a higher standard of mental health.
> why are we allowing Tan to step away from this because he was drunk?
I'm not. Being drunk excuses nothing. If anything, it makes it more poignant because drunk people are more likely to say out loud those thoughts that they would otherwise prefer keep to themselves. "In vino veritas".
I'm not. Being drunk excuses nothing. If anything, it makes it more poignant because drunk people are more likely to say out loud those thoughts that they would otherwise prefer keep to themselves. "In vino veritas".
I wouldn't mind making him endure those cringy pre-recorded videos HR makes you sit through every X number of years about professionalism in the workplace, filled with staged and stock photography, amateur hour voice-overs, and fourth grade level personal interaction.
Obviously the problem is the technology that makes it too easy for a drunk person to be publicly intoxicated and causing trouble.
But ignore the fact that most people on this board work for companies that build this technology.
But ignore the fact that most people on this board work for companies that build this technology.
I have my objects to Twitter, but that isn't one of them. Here, someone in a position of power demonstrated poor judgment and self-control in a way that damages his reputation and that of his company, but does not harm anyone beyond that.
I dont agree.
So because some un-self-aware rich a hole says something offensive we should censor, restrict the free speech of the general populous?
It's not the enablement of communication that's the problem here. It's a simple case of fault. He is as fault for his actions, not social media.
So because some un-self-aware rich a hole says something offensive we should censor, restrict the free speech of the general populous?
It's not the enablement of communication that's the problem here. It's a simple case of fault. He is as fault for his actions, not social media.
Presumably GP is not suggesting censorship but rather that we pause and zoom out before condemning someone for saying something dumb on the internet while drunk.
Perhaps Twitter needs a breathalyser option for the more excitable executive.
I think you can hold people to a standard of behavior, but I don't think you can hold anyone to a standard of mental health.
A local resident is exercising their First Amendment right against the elected government officials. The government has no leg to stand on here. What was said is 100% legally protected under the First Amendment.
quite the leap from a few too many drinks, directly to therapy and mental health issues. if that's your take from someone being drunk and saying something ridiculous then I'd question your judgement.
There are many things I appreciate about YC News but being certain that this report will not be censored here is something I truly appreciate about this forum. Thanks @Dang et al.
There's a lot of censoring here, not sure how you can be so certain. I think that the admins outsource most of the censoring to "senior" users though by giving more weight to their flagging.
> I think that the admins outsource most of the censoring to "senior" users though by giving more weight to their flagging.
Nah even easier, it’s mostly outsourced to groupthink. Doesn’t involve anything nefarious, just inaction and delegation.
Nah even easier, it’s mostly outsourced to groupthink. Doesn’t involve anything nefarious, just inaction and delegation.
If you have a system that relies on voting, and people vote against some things appearing, that's not called censoring! That's just the system working as intended.
So, just so we're on the same page, you are saying that users of "news.ycombinator.com" wanted to purposefully hide a story about the CEO of Y Combinator wishing the death of San Francisco politicians, as well as the actual death threats that have surfaced as a result.
You can call it censorship or not, but it's not a good look either way.
You can call it censorship or not, but it's not a good look either way.
> [...] you are saying that users of "news.ycombinator.com" wanted to purposefully hide a story about [...]
No, you're interpreting things here in a specific way.
It could be that users didn't think it belonged on HN because it was politics, which is often frowned upon. It could be that they thought there was a problem with the article itself.
In any case, even if it was totally the community choosing to not want to see this news (which I doubt), it wasn't a deliberate action by the people running the site, which does make a difference (otherwise that would've been the original accusation).
No, you're interpreting things here in a specific way.
It could be that users didn't think it belonged on HN because it was politics, which is often frowned upon. It could be that they thought there was a problem with the article itself.
In any case, even if it was totally the community choosing to not want to see this news (which I doubt), it wasn't a deliberate action by the people running the site, which does make a difference (otherwise that would've been the original accusation).
I would hope that a CEO of a company that runs the forum you post in sending a drunken text wishing death upon people is both newsworthy and something that we could all agree on is bad. But not only was this article flagged by users, so were many others, as noted elsewhere in the thread.
However, I think you are making a distinction without a real difference. The company that hosts this forum set it up with an incentive structure that results in the behavioral outcomes we see on this forum. If these incentives lead to newsworthy posts concerning the CEO of the company that runs these forums getting flagged, perhaps the incentives need to be changed.
However, I think you are making a distinction without a real difference. The company that hosts this forum set it up with an incentive structure that results in the behavioral outcomes we see on this forum. If these incentives lead to newsworthy posts concerning the CEO of the company that runs these forums getting flagged, perhaps the incentives need to be changed.
Look, I wrote a huge reply, but I ended up deciding we agree more than we disagree, so I scrapped it.
I think the only thing I'm trying to push back on is any kind of "conspiracy" thinking - this might not be anything coordinated, definitely not by HN staff, nor by HN "elite" users or anything like that.
I think the only thing I'm trying to push back on is any kind of "conspiracy" thinking - this might not be anything coordinated, definitely not by HN staff, nor by HN "elite" users or anything like that.
I don't think that structural problems with incentives require any sort of conspiratorial thinking. If you give individual users the ability to flag or downvote posts to tank their discoverability, it is possible for a disconnected group of users to decide to flag a post for less-than-legitimate reasons, even if they're not communicating with each other.
It's a different flavor of Reddit's "downvote for disagreement" status quo. The rules might say one thing, but the behavior of users says another.
It's a different flavor of Reddit's "downvote for disagreement" status quo. The rules might say one thing, but the behavior of users says another.
Lol, yes, shadowy "admins" (there really is primarily just one, dang), and "senior" users, as if there is some hidden way to become senior. This isn't Reddit, and it doesn't work that way.
The behavior of who gets downvote and flagging rights is clearly spelled out. It's available to anyone who's been on the site long enough (and it's not that long, at all). I see this all the time where people complain about "being censored", where the reality is the community has heard what you have to say, we just think it sucks. That's not censorship, that's pretty politely stating we would prefer HN not become the cesspool of online discourse that pervades nearly all other online forums.
The behavior of who gets downvote and flagging rights is clearly spelled out. It's available to anyone who's been on the site long enough (and it's not that long, at all). I see this all the time where people complain about "being censored", where the reality is the community has heard what you have to say, we just think it sucks. That's not censorship, that's pretty politely stating we would prefer HN not become the cesspool of online discourse that pervades nearly all other online forums.
Looks to me like they've applied some kind of heavy weighting penalty so it's already down to page 7.
I wonder how hard it would be to reverse engineer the penalty. You can easily poll to get points/time for stories and then probably use that to figure out the algorithm and any penalties/boosts (an old version seems to be documented).
I wonder how hard it would be to reverse engineer the penalty. You can easily poll to get points/time for stories and then probably use that to figure out the algorithm and any penalties/boosts (an old version seems to be documented).
We didn't touch the post. It set off the flamewar detector, and rightly so. However, because of the principle I described recently at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39172045*, I'm going to turn that off now.
* and past explanations over the years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
* and past explanations over the years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
> being certain that this report will not be censored here
Why? HN censors shit all the time, and its all invisible unless you go looking for it.
Why? HN censors shit all the time, and its all invisible unless you go looking for it.
This exact story was already flagged by the community. The HN groupthink is way more powerful than the moderator.
well to be fair, the Mission Local story from 3 days ago about Tan tweeting Tupac lyrics, was posted 3 days ago and flagged 3 days ago.
This story's lede is several San Francisco Board Of Supervisors members receiving post cards quoting Garry Tan's words.
Different story.
This story's lede is several San Francisco Board Of Supervisors members receiving post cards quoting Garry Tan's words.
Different story.
The same story (different source) was also flagged today
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39199703
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39199703
In a lot of ways censorship here is worse than other places due to the weirdly attributed trust given towards HN members who think of themselves as enlightened intellectuals.
For example, try to post something pro Apple, or even try to play devils advocate. Your comment will be flagged within minutes.
For example, try to post something pro Apple, or even try to play devils advocate. Your comment will be flagged within minutes.
I think in most regards HN actually has a pretty favourable opinion of Apple, at least when compared to, say, Google or Microsoft.
Indeed. Well, not to take away from the moderation team.
[deleted]
This is why it's important to hold a drink in each hand—so you can't tweet.
Startup bros tried doing that the last decade and got fleeced by Benioff and every nonprofit outfit in town.
Maybe Benioff is just slightly smarter about politics then getting drunk and posting unhinged rants on twitter.
This is like saying Boeing is smarter about politics because they can afford to buy off every ex-staffer in DC.
These people all have a lot of money and they all try to use it to influence politics, so if Benioff is so much more successful, maybe there's actually something to learn from him, such as, maybe, not wishing death on people.
As I mentioned in my first message: the startup bros weren’t particularly politically active until the last couple years. And they’ve been relatively successful since.
I guess I assumed from his anger that he wasn't that successful.
He likes bravado, but the startup bro faction has succeeded in the majority of political fights it’s engaged in so far. This shouldn’t be all to surprising either: a lot of these local elections are decided by a couple hundred votes. Sustained attention can have a large swing in outcomes.
Also need a straw in your mouth to block voice to text.
But once Neuralink arrives, we're lost.
But once Neuralink arrives, we're lost.
He forgot the primary rule of then Inebriati! The hidden rulers must stay slightly-under two drinks.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmp_--Oow5o
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmp_--Oow5o
> Bizarrely, the letter to Preston and Peskin concluded: “This mail was sent to communicate a political opinion. No threats were intended.”
Reminds me of the YouTube videos with "no copyright infringement intended" disclaimers.
Reminds me of the YouTube videos with "no copyright infringement intended" disclaimers.
Yea, this is a pretty cool hack. I think I'm going to go get a bumper sticker for my car that says "No speeding intended."
...in Minecraft.[0]
[0] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/in-minecraft
[0] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/in-minecraft
This is not financial advice
I am not a lawyer
I'm sorry you were offended
I am not a lawyer
I'm sorry you were offended
The first two are at least going to be on reasonable communications.
I can't believe the lengths people here are going to trying to defend his behavior. There's a reason influential people shouldn't be publicly calling for others to die in pain. Coincidental rap lyrics or not. Someone might just take you up on it. It's extremely irresponsible and dangerous.
Are rappers not influential people?
[deleted]
“San Francisco supervisors”,
in case anyone else wonders what’s a “supervisor”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Board_of_Super...
in case anyone else wonders what’s a “supervisor”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Board_of_Super...
Thanks! So they are the legislature of San Francisco city/county, and there are only 11 of them, so it's quite a significant position.
Over 95 percent of San Francisco's budget is directly controlled by the Mayor's office. The Mayor's office in San Francisco is incredibly powerful.
Supervisors mostly sit through the monthly televised Board Of Supervisors meeting, where concerned citizens and community activists along with the utterly deranged voice their concerns.
Supervisors mostly sit through the monthly televised Board Of Supervisors meeting, where concerned citizens and community activists along with the utterly deranged voice their concerns.
wanted to clarify this with "95 percent of SF's _discretionary_ budget" is owned by the SF mayor.
> concerned citizens and community activists along with the utterly deranged
I thought I saw a Venn diagram for XKCD ...
I thought I saw a Venn diagram for XKCD ...
Yes, and they also are famously in silos. They each advocate for their own districts only, and so it's often a battle between districts for resources, etc. It's actually a pretty dysfunctional system from what I've seen attending local government meetings and trying to get basic simple things done in my community
Representation is surprisingly even worse in LA county. 5 supervisors for 10 million people. Californian government systems really weren’t designed for the populations they currently represent.
Thank you, I've read three articles so far and none have explained this. Supervisor is such a generic term, it's difficult to research without knowing what it is.
So basically, he said fuck the council and he hopes they die a slow death. Not very nice, but also not usually a contraversial opinion? Lots of people dislike their councils.
So basically, he said fuck the council and he hopes they die a slow death. Not very nice, but also not usually a contraversial opinion? Lots of people dislike their councils.
Yeah this story is missing all context - what "supervisors" are, what his beef with them was, etc.
If I did this I'd be out of a job.
Every lower level employee in a company would be out of a job
Is that actually how it works these days? That any unhinged social media rant results in a firing?
Yes. Ive had several corporate trainings from several big big companies where they explicitly say so.
I had one training even state outright that if you were seen on social media wearing company swag and doing something like flipping the bird or anything even mildly offensive that was grounds for dismissal.
I had one training even state outright that if you were seen on social media wearing company swag and doing something like flipping the bird or anything even mildly offensive that was grounds for dismissal.
If I did this, I wouldn't be out of a job.
Which of us is right? Maybe both (corporate culture can be pretty heterogeneous). Hard to say, regardless
Which of us is right? Maybe both (corporate culture can be pretty heterogeneous). Hard to say, regardless
I work for an anarcho-capitalist. If anything, I'd be shamed for not being more vituperative. These snakes don't deserve anything except your maximum contempt.
Counterproductive, and makes Garry Tan look like a real asshole. Now people will have sympathy for the Supervisors whereas a thoughtful criticism could have put real problems with their leadership on display.
Garry Tan is already doing the "thoughtful criticism" https://growsf.org/
Ranting on Twitter should not be a crime IMO
Ranting on Twitter should not be a crime IMO
Standing on a podium shouting "A,B and C should die!" to your audience should be a crime, and luckily is in many countries.
[deleted]
>Garry Tan is already doing the "thoughtful criticism" https://growsf.org/
The act of providing "thoughtful criticism" doesn't make it OK to tell people you wish them dead.
>Ranting on Twitter should not be a crime IMO
I don't really see anyone saying that it should be. People are welcome to rant on Twitter, just as people are welcome to take issue with said rant, and then form an opinion of that person based on the words they chose to post.
The act of providing "thoughtful criticism" doesn't make it OK to tell people you wish them dead.
>Ranting on Twitter should not be a crime IMO
I don't really see anyone saying that it should be. People are welcome to rant on Twitter, just as people are welcome to take issue with said rant, and then form an opinion of that person based on the words they chose to post.
There are legal crimes, and then there are social faux pas that gets one convicted in the court of public opinion.
Wearing white shoes in October is a faux pas. Putting lemon and milk in your tea is a faux pas. Wishing your political opponents death is a threat.
Yes, he is in politics. His rant is more in line with today’s politicial speech than that PR website.
I'm Blocked By Garry Tan, but Tan appears to actively focus on convincing his enemies that he is a real asshole.
Makes it look like, or makes it clear that?
Thoughtless perhaps, but I don't think this is enough to indicate arseholery. People often get very emotional about things and rant about people while still doing good things and behaving in an exemplary fashion most of the time.
I think it is indicative that not only is he an asshole, he's a asshole with violent tendencies.
I mean, I and everyone I know have become very emotional and ranted about things every so often, but never has expressing a desire to see people die a slow death entered into it. That he did says something important to know about him.
I mean, I and everyone I know have become very emotional and ranted about things every so often, but never has expressing a desire to see people die a slow death entered into it. That he did says something important to know about him.
For context, Peskin himself is known to verbally harass public officials while intoxicated:
> Verbal harassment
> Peskin has been known to make inappropriate late night phone calls to public officials and private citizens.[9] For example, he called the Port of San Francisco director Monique Moyer several times about cutting their funding over disagreements concerning waterfront building height limits. Mayor Newsom told the San Francisco Chronicle that people around city hall had been complaining about Peskin's behavior for years.[49] However, former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos has said Peskin's alleged behavior falls "well within the boundaries of the system" and that it's "not unusual in politics at any level of government."[49]
> In 2018, at the scene of the St. Patrick's Day fire in North Beach, Peskin was reportedly intoxicated while he verbally berated then-Deputy Fire Chief of Operations Mark Gonzalez. Peskin has denied being intoxicated at the time but has apologized for his behavior.[50]
> In June 2021, Peskin announced in a statement that he would be entering into alcohol treatment.[51] Peskin apologized for behavior that he attributed to his alcohol problem, but also announced that he planned to remain in office while in treatment.[52]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Peskin#Verbal_harassment
> Verbal harassment
> Peskin has been known to make inappropriate late night phone calls to public officials and private citizens.[9] For example, he called the Port of San Francisco director Monique Moyer several times about cutting their funding over disagreements concerning waterfront building height limits. Mayor Newsom told the San Francisco Chronicle that people around city hall had been complaining about Peskin's behavior for years.[49] However, former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos has said Peskin's alleged behavior falls "well within the boundaries of the system" and that it's "not unusual in politics at any level of government."[49]
> In 2018, at the scene of the St. Patrick's Day fire in North Beach, Peskin was reportedly intoxicated while he verbally berated then-Deputy Fire Chief of Operations Mark Gonzalez. Peskin has denied being intoxicated at the time but has apologized for his behavior.[50]
> In June 2021, Peskin announced in a statement that he would be entering into alcohol treatment.[51] Peskin apologized for behavior that he attributed to his alcohol problem, but also announced that he planned to remain in office while in treatment.[52]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Peskin#Verbal_harassment
Didn’t see any death threats listed, is this relevant?
He is a bully.
It would be good to have some actual analysis of how this is relevant to the topic rather than throwing out more character assassination of a victim. Victims can be bad people too but that is not relevant as calls for death are always unacceptable, no matter the victim.
They all filed police reports because they felt threatened but have no issue with everyday citizens and tourists in SF enduring far worse than inebriated vitriol.
Not sure why you are downvoted. This is correct. Ordinary citizens have had to put up with so much worse in their day to day lives in SF due to the lack of these supes doing their jobs. I can attest, I have lived in SF over the last 7 years and have seen its decline.
Downvote be cause it is an unsubstantiated claim, speaks to a state of mind (which implies the ability to mind read, short of that ot is casting a stereotype/assumption), finally, the criticism is "what-about-ism"
From a Seattle perspective, the "seattle is dying narrative" has been going on for a decade, despite the city having thr most cranes on its skyline and being a boom city for that time. Which is to say, confirmation bias is a bitch.
From a Seattle perspective, the "seattle is dying narrative" has been going on for a decade, despite the city having thr most cranes on its skyline and being a boom city for that time. Which is to say, confirmation bias is a bitch.
Probably downvoted for "Two wrongs make a right" fallacy. Basically if A does something bad, an irrational/tribal behavior is to disregard the problem by bringing up an unrelated bad behavior of another party. Two wrongs make two wrongs.
The problem is that this argument is a logical fallacy. Threats to civic leaders are wrong. Whether or not they are good leaders does not change the wrongness of the threats.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
[deleted]
That's (whatboutism) not a logical fallacy. I meant it can be, but I don't see how it is in this case.
Tan's tweet was reprehensible, but I doubt it rises to the level of criminality. With respect to his inebriiation, as my elementary school teacher used to say, " While it explains, it does not excuse."
But I think a sincere mea culpa should end the incident.
But I think a sincere mea culpa should end the incident.
From
https://missionlocal.org/2024/01/garry-tan-death-wish-sf-sup...
He hasn’t liked it when the threats were the other way:
> In the past, Tan has not been receptive to jokes about him: When commenting on San Francisco community organizer Julian La Rosa, who had said that “millionaires and landlords should be guillotined,” Tan seemed to take the jest deadly seriously.
> “This is not a joke,” he posted. “This guy wants to guillotine people.”
> “This kind of stuff should have zero place in San Francisco politics,” he later said.
https://missionlocal.org/2024/01/garry-tan-death-wish-sf-sup...
He hasn’t liked it when the threats were the other way:
> In the past, Tan has not been receptive to jokes about him: When commenting on San Francisco community organizer Julian La Rosa, who had said that “millionaires and landlords should be guillotined,” Tan seemed to take the jest deadly seriously.
> “This is not a joke,” he posted. “This guy wants to guillotine people.”
> “This kind of stuff should have zero place in San Francisco politics,” he later said.
I'm more inclined to think Garry Tan is a sadist, not a hypocrite. He said "die slow." There's few methods of killing that are faster than the guillotine. Garry clearly believes only ISIS-approved execution methods belong in SF politics.
Rich techbros being hypocrites? I'm utterly shocked!
Julian never apologized for his tweet whereas Garry did, so it’s kind of a false equivalence.
Why would Y Combinator keep an employee on board -- any employee -- who posted desires on Twitter for a group of people to die a slow death? The politics of it are irrelevant.
Seems like whenever tech people get rich enough they become completely obsessed with politics.
I think it's more that once you get rich, the political machine becomes obsessed with you and your donations. That attention can be kind of addictive.
That ladder isn't going to pull itself up.
It's an ego thing
They're like dragons guarding their piles of gold
No, just the ones you are likely to hear about on the news. Take a look at the top 10 richest Americans, most spend very little time on politics and you'll often struggle to even find out their opinions of the issues of the day.
Ha! That is so not true. Musk, Koch, Griffin, Bloomberg, Gates.
I couldn't even tell you whether Gates currently votes Republican or Democrat, let alone his position on zoning or trans rights.
I think the word "obsessed" would definitely be inapplicable.
I think the word "obsessed" would definitely be inapplicable.
How they vote is probably irrelevant. To whom their PACs donate, however…
Feels very egoic to me.
When I saw "supes" in the headline I thought it meant superintendants, as in people in charge of a school system.
Here it means members of the county board of supervisors. If you live in a place where that's not a thing, it's very similar to a city council or county commissioners in many other US places.
Here it means members of the county board of supervisors. If you live in a place where that's not a thing, it's very similar to a city council or county commissioners in many other US places.
Funny, I thought of superheroes, because they're called "supes" in The Boys. I was confused whether this was a joke announcing a new season of The Boys. I clicked the article just to clarify what supes meant lol
The City and County of San Francisco has a unique unitary government, where the citizens in my experience think of the supervisors as city supervisors, not county supervisors, even if both or either might be technically accurate.
is this the dude that is known for blocking a lot of randos on Twitter?
edit: ah yeah he is lol:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32641557
edit: ah yeah he is lol:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32641557
Regardless of whether you agree/disagree/whatever is this the kind of volatility you want on the cap table?
Do you want to work for a company where this kind of volatility is an investor?
The wildest part of this is that Tan mimicked a lyric from a diss song (Hit Em Up), ostensibly in jest. Never mind that the release of that song was part of a conflict that ended with two rappers (2Pac & Biggie) dead.
Of all the diss tracks, he picks the one with allegations of sleeping with someone’s wife, making fun of someone’s health conditions, demeaning women, and of course repeated threats of death that eventually manifested in real-life murders.
Of all the diss tracks, he picks the one with allegations of sleeping with someone’s wife, making fun of someone’s health conditions, demeaning women, and of course repeated threats of death that eventually manifested in real-life murders.
Can someone explain to me what the dynamic is in San Franciso? I honestly don't get this situation where practically every rich VC/Software/Tech person in silicon valley bithces and moans about San Francisco. But it's like... rich tech guys have been hanging around silicon valley for decades now, they're billionaires. They could literally fund candidates for every single government position down to highly politically motivated garbage collectors. How come it seems like they have no political power at all?
Surely they should just... put some people into power who'll do what they want? Like I'm not even saying "Why haven't they solved the problem", I'm saying "Why haven't the rich tech guys not just spent money to put people they like in power?" And I'm not just saying Garry personally, I'm saying it seems an almost universal view that rich silicon valley people want different people in charge, so... go... do it?
Or do they actually have a load of political power and just don't want to fess up to the fact it's their own dumb politics causing the problems in the first place?
Surely they should just... put some people into power who'll do what they want? Like I'm not even saying "Why haven't they solved the problem", I'm saying "Why haven't the rich tech guys not just spent money to put people they like in power?" And I'm not just saying Garry personally, I'm saying it seems an almost universal view that rich silicon valley people want different people in charge, so... go... do it?
Or do they actually have a load of political power and just don't want to fess up to the fact it's their own dumb politics causing the problems in the first place?
> favoring moderate causes and candidates and targeting progressives
for us non-americans, can someone please explain what general political aims the 'moderate' and 'progressive' parties represent? And where are they on the republican democrat spectrum?
for us non-americans, can someone please explain what general political aims the 'moderate' and 'progressive' parties represent? And where are they on the republican democrat spectrum?
The article goes out of its way to avoid naming the cause which is: housing! More affordable homes! Valuing people over historic buildings and neighborhood character! You know, the kind of stuff that actually should be considered progressive
so the progressives want more affordable homes, and the moderates don't?
Everyone claims to wants more affordable homes, there's just a disagreement about how to best achieve it, and a certain amount of money spent on obfuscation and practically counterproductive policies (arguably on all sides); property owners are a major political force on all sides of SF politics, and some of them want to keep prices high.
The "progressives" generally want to limit gentrification, prevent renters from being evicted, and add more subsidized housing. The "moderates" generally want to make it easier to build more housing of any type. You could broadly characterize the two groups as "default skeptical" vs. "default supportive" of real estate developers.
But housing is only one point of disagreement (albeit one of the most significant), plenty of people have more nuanced positions than this, and these camps are not entirely uniform across issues. Other points of recent disagreement include Covid lockdowns, what the school board should focus on, how hard prosecutors should go after police misconduct vs. minor crime, responses to the homeless, how much power the board of supervisors should have vs. the mayor's office, ...
The "progressives" generally want to limit gentrification, prevent renters from being evicted, and add more subsidized housing. The "moderates" generally want to make it easier to build more housing of any type. You could broadly characterize the two groups as "default skeptical" vs. "default supportive" of real estate developers.
But housing is only one point of disagreement (albeit one of the most significant), plenty of people have more nuanced positions than this, and these camps are not entirely uniform across issues. Other points of recent disagreement include Covid lockdowns, what the school board should focus on, how hard prosecutors should go after police misconduct vs. minor crime, responses to the homeless, how much power the board of supervisors should have vs. the mayor's office, ...
For context, I think it's important to highlight that 60% of SF renters are in rent controlled units. The split between building affordable and not affordable housing has a huge impact on the cities "soul". It's quite literally choosing one future vs another, in many folks minds.
Rent controlled does not mean below market rate, and affordability isn’t poured in concrete so “building affordable and not affordable housing” is a nonsensical statement.
It is though.
It's true that affordability isn't poured into concrete, but it is baked into each and every real estate transaction.
A new luxury high rise needs to have x number of affordable units by law. As you point out, it's true that they don't build the affordable units much or any different than their other units.
But, the way the whole financial side of the thing is structured is completely different than it would be if the laws were different.
A home is just as much a mortgage as it is a physical object.
It's true that affordability isn't poured into concrete, but it is baked into each and every real estate transaction.
A new luxury high rise needs to have x number of affordable units by law. As you point out, it's true that they don't build the affordable units much or any different than their other units.
But, the way the whole financial side of the thing is structured is completely different than it would be if the laws were different.
A home is just as much a mortgage as it is a physical object.
This is an extremely charitable take. As far as can be observed by the consequences of their policy, the progs don’t actually care about maximizing new affordable housing production. If they did, they would not have referred to SB35 as genocidal policy. It also squares with their coalition which is basically NIMBYs and nostalgic boomers.
I was trying to be as "extremely charitable" to both sides here as I could, because the point is to broadly characterize the two groups for the information of people unfamiliar with SF politics, not to push my own personal message. (For reference, Wiener, who wrote SB35, used to be my supervisor and I am generally a fan.)
It's not fair to say that the progressive group primarily consists of "NIMBYs and nostalgic boomers", nor is the group cohesive enough to label anyone's individual comments as representative of a "they"; if you are going to characterize either of these groups negatively you should try to quote specific comments and attribute them to specific people, rather than making vague insinuations.
It's not fair to say that the progressive group primarily consists of "NIMBYs and nostalgic boomers", nor is the group cohesive enough to label anyone's individual comments as representative of a "they"; if you are going to characterize either of these groups negatively you should try to quote specific comments and attribute them to specific people, rather than making vague insinuations.
The position on SB35 was taken by CCHO, which is not a wacky fringe organization but instead of the most influential progressive policymaking bodies around housing policy.
I think you offered charity to the point of being misleading. There is only one side who wants to make housing more affordable. The charitable view of progressive policy making is that they reject any demand for San Francisco to be a commercial center and want to preserve the lifestyle, built environment, and composition of residents to what it was in the 80s.
I think you offered charity to the point of being misleading. There is only one side who wants to make housing more affordable. The charitable view of progressive policy making is that they reject any demand for San Francisco to be a commercial center and want to preserve the lifestyle, built environment, and composition of residents to what it was in the 80s.
Which "genocidal policy" comment specifically are you talking about? I am not personally familiar with that one.
Folks interested can read what CCHO said about SB35 here: https://www.sfccho.org/in-the-news/2018/10/13/opinion-alarmi...
The crux of their concern/prediction is:
> As currently written, the practical outcome of SB 35 will be to further expedite and accelerate market-rate approvals in the small handful of California communities where the real estate market is already hot – communities that are overwhelmingly urban, low-income, and predominantly people of color. These are the same communities that are currently grappling with displacement and gentrification, and typically have terrible imbalances of market-rate housing development compared to affordable housing. Simply accelerating approvals in those communities is just a recipe to spur even more aggressive gentrification.
I personally think folks like the CCHO are taking a misguided policy approach to solving/ameliorating the problems they worry about, and sometimes behave disingenuously (and should be called out, with specific details, when they do so). But that doesn't make their concerns illegitimate.
Here's an example of an earlier direct reply by Wiener to CCHO about the bill: http://www.beyondchron.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Senato...
> This housing crisis will never be solved without a solution that includes a significantly increased supply of all types of housing, at all income levels, in every community throughout California, both subsidized and non-subsidized. The devastating eviction crisis and rapid displacement of low- and middle-income people from cities results, in large part, from failing to build enough housing for the past half century. SB 35 empowers the state to take action and ensure that every single community is approving its fair share of housing – especially those communities currently punting their housing needs to neighboring jurisdictions.
Folks interested can read what CCHO said about SB35 here: https://www.sfccho.org/in-the-news/2018/10/13/opinion-alarmi...
The crux of their concern/prediction is:
> As currently written, the practical outcome of SB 35 will be to further expedite and accelerate market-rate approvals in the small handful of California communities where the real estate market is already hot – communities that are overwhelmingly urban, low-income, and predominantly people of color. These are the same communities that are currently grappling with displacement and gentrification, and typically have terrible imbalances of market-rate housing development compared to affordable housing. Simply accelerating approvals in those communities is just a recipe to spur even more aggressive gentrification.
I personally think folks like the CCHO are taking a misguided policy approach to solving/ameliorating the problems they worry about, and sometimes behave disingenuously (and should be called out, with specific details, when they do so). But that doesn't make their concerns illegitimate.
Here's an example of an earlier direct reply by Wiener to CCHO about the bill: http://www.beyondchron.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Senato...
> This housing crisis will never be solved without a solution that includes a significantly increased supply of all types of housing, at all income levels, in every community throughout California, both subsidized and non-subsidized. The devastating eviction crisis and rapid displacement of low- and middle-income people from cities results, in large part, from failing to build enough housing for the past half century. SB 35 empowers the state to take action and ensure that every single community is approving its fair share of housing – especially those communities currently punting their housing needs to neighboring jurisdictions.
It’s hard to look up since many of the offending characters have since scrubbed information or protected their social media presence.
Here is Calvin Welch, friends with Marti and Cohen and housing guru to Sup. Preston, saying Home S.F., a gentler streamlining measure vs. SB35, was ethnic cleansing: https://missionlocal.org/2016/01/sf-delays-controversial-hou....
I’ll keep looking for the other statement I had in mind.
Here is Calvin Welch, friends with Marti and Cohen and housing guru to Sup. Preston, saying Home S.F., a gentler streamlining measure vs. SB35, was ethnic cleansing: https://missionlocal.org/2016/01/sf-delays-controversial-hou....
I’ll keep looking for the other statement I had in mind.
If you want to characterize Welch specifically as a "nostalgic boomer" I'm not going to argue. (He might even be pre-boomer?)
Calling these proposals "ethnic cleansing" is ridiculous hyperbole. Not as stupid as a death-threat song lyric tweet, but definitely unhelpful. Welch was rightly called out for that one.
Calling these proposals "ethnic cleansing" is ridiculous hyperbole. Not as stupid as a death-threat song lyric tweet, but definitely unhelpful. Welch was rightly called out for that one.
[deleted](1)
Moderates believe supply and demand applies to housing, and that building more housing, regardless of whether it is explicitly "low income", is the most important thing to improve housing affordability. In practice, this means favoring upzoning (allowing duplexes/triplexes/apartment buildings in more places), and minimizing burdens on developers. Eg, advocating against "inclusionary zoning requirements" that require X% of a given building to be rented out at below market rate and against long development approval processes.
Progressives believe that allowing developers to build housing will only create "luxury" housing that is unaffordable to all but the rich, increasing gentrification and displacement. Therefore it's necessary to mandate things like "inclusionary zoning" and tight review of every single development project.
Empirically, the progressive stance results in a lot less housing of any sort getting built, whether "affordable" or otherwise, and consequently higher housing prices for all but the lucky lottery winners who grab the limited number of BMR ("Below Market Rent") units. Some would say that that's actually the goal of progressives (ie, they're using "progressive" window dressing to preserve property values/neighborhood aesthetics of the very rich).
Progressives believe that allowing developers to build housing will only create "luxury" housing that is unaffordable to all but the rich, increasing gentrification and displacement. Therefore it's necessary to mandate things like "inclusionary zoning" and tight review of every single development project.
Empirically, the progressive stance results in a lot less housing of any sort getting built, whether "affordable" or otherwise, and consequently higher housing prices for all but the lucky lottery winners who grab the limited number of BMR ("Below Market Rent") units. Some would say that that's actually the goal of progressives (ie, they're using "progressive" window dressing to preserve property values/neighborhood aesthetics of the very rich).
Again, progressives oppose development regardless of affordability. They, for example, opposed amending the city charter to exempt affordable housing projects from discretionary review. They are suing UCSF over hospital expansion and opposed it constructing new housing for its staff. They organized against state bill SB35 and various density bonuses that allow for the construction of new affordable housing. They opposed the height and density proposed for a 100% affordable housing project through HANC and dragged proposals for redevelopment at Potrero Yard and CCSF through decades of process. Progressive political consultants worked for Livermore NIMBYs to spin a lawsuit against a proposed downtown affordable housing project. I could go on.
20 years ago, progs would admit outright that they thought new development was undesirable. Since, it has become more inappropriate to say that out loud so they dress it in concerns about only supporting housing under economically infeasible conditions.
20 years ago, progs would admit outright that they thought new development was undesirable. Since, it has become more inappropriate to say that out loud so they dress it in concerns about only supporting housing under economically infeasible conditions.
The cause of what?
Usually moderates can be either party, the ones willing to work together from both sides, so in the center. Progressives are generally considered to be the left-leaning democrats.
I could be mistaken though, I've been trying to avoid politics recently....
In San Francisco the Republican Party is marginal (and broadly despised by the electorate), so you can think of the "progressives" vs. "moderates" as sort of the local version of two parties, mostly within the Democratic party.
There are no "moderate" nor "progressive" parties. There's just Democrats and Republicans, which in a global context are respectively center/center-right and right. In a US context, both terms are more likely to refer to Democrats, and definitely not to Republicans. There are some other parties but they are of next-to-no consequence in US politics.
It's pretty hard to say what the terms "progressive" and "moderate" mean in a US context, but I would say that both terms exclude the American far right and populist movements, and are vague as to what they include otherwise. The Overton window has shifted hard to the right in the United States, so it's probably somewhat right of what you may expect from, say, a European perspective. A moderate will probably be sympathetic to limiting immigration, for example, a progressive is likely more in support of immigration. Both groups probably support minority rights (e.g. LGBTQ, Muslim, etc), but moderates less so.
In terms of economics, both terms and parties generally describe liberal capitalist economic policy, which is dogmatically entrenched across the US political spectrum, to the point where most Americans cannot conceptualize economic systems other than liberal capitalism. The main difference in political economic values across the US political spectrum fixate mainly on who pays how much taxes, and subsidies for liberal capitalist businesses. Progressives may be more pro-union, whereas most moderates are generally not.
Moderate and progressive groups can overlap, particularly in a politician who wants to appeal to both, usually by contrasting themselves with the right.
Disclosing my biases: I am an American leftist (or social democrat, if you prefer) living abroad, and I generally have quite a lot of disdain for moderates, particularly in the United States. I'm definitely holding my punches for this comment, though, for what it's worth.
It's pretty hard to say what the terms "progressive" and "moderate" mean in a US context, but I would say that both terms exclude the American far right and populist movements, and are vague as to what they include otherwise. The Overton window has shifted hard to the right in the United States, so it's probably somewhat right of what you may expect from, say, a European perspective. A moderate will probably be sympathetic to limiting immigration, for example, a progressive is likely more in support of immigration. Both groups probably support minority rights (e.g. LGBTQ, Muslim, etc), but moderates less so.
In terms of economics, both terms and parties generally describe liberal capitalist economic policy, which is dogmatically entrenched across the US political spectrum, to the point where most Americans cannot conceptualize economic systems other than liberal capitalism. The main difference in political economic values across the US political spectrum fixate mainly on who pays how much taxes, and subsidies for liberal capitalist businesses. Progressives may be more pro-union, whereas most moderates are generally not.
Moderate and progressive groups can overlap, particularly in a politician who wants to appeal to both, usually by contrasting themselves with the right.
Disclosing my biases: I am an American leftist (or social democrat, if you prefer) living abroad, and I generally have quite a lot of disdain for moderates, particularly in the United States. I'm definitely holding my punches for this comment, though, for what it's worth.
You must be purely talking economics if you think the Democrats are globally center-right.
If you have a few minutes of thought to the ~200 countries that 8 billion people are living under, like China, India, Russia, Japan, Iran, Nigeria, Indonesia, Poland, Phillipines, Turkey, and their policies on immigration, LGBT, drug use, freedom of speech/press, you would quickly be disabused of any idea the US democrats are center-right.
What I think is that steeped in a Western European leftist bubble, 95% of the world is right wing to you, and you’re confused on where America stands in that spectrum, forgetting about who’s currently been elected in the rest of Europe like Sweden, UK, Poland, Netherlands, Italy, Hungary, Serbia, etc.
If you have a few minutes of thought to the ~200 countries that 8 billion people are living under, like China, India, Russia, Japan, Iran, Nigeria, Indonesia, Poland, Phillipines, Turkey, and their policies on immigration, LGBT, drug use, freedom of speech/press, you would quickly be disabused of any idea the US democrats are center-right.
What I think is that steeped in a Western European leftist bubble, 95% of the world is right wing to you, and you’re confused on where America stands in that spectrum, forgetting about who’s currently been elected in the rest of Europe like Sweden, UK, Poland, Netherlands, Italy, Hungary, Serbia, etc.
Aye, center-right in terms of economics, more center (or even center-left) in terms of social policy. Pushing it to the right, consider Democrats on war and the military industrial complex. And, ultimately, I would say that the unifying policy of the Democrats is to preserve the status quo in all matters: social and economic. And the status quo in the US leans right as far as the global stage is concerned. And don't forget about Europe when establishing your list of countries to define a global overton window.
> consider Democrats on war and the military industrial complex
This requires a much longer thesis. In short, war throughout history is quite a centrist position (since it's been waged extensively by both left and rightists). Right now you have the Democrats advocating for defense of a nation against invasion, and a leftist government (Venezuela) advocating for the invasion and annexation of Guyana. When leftist governments aren't advocating for industrial military (USSR), global armed revolution and killing, it's usually said through the privilege and zero-skin-in-the-game safety of being under the US' defensive shield, or it's Pol Pot.
> Democrats is to preserve the status quo in all matters: social
Quite humorous to most global onlookers, I'm sure, as most would not be fond of some Democrats' constant push for "social justice."
> don't forget about Europe when establishing your list of countries to define a global overton window
Europe is 9.3% of the world. Half of which wouldn't agree with you since there are still many right wing governments in Europe and 41% of France voted for Le Pen.
So again, I'd recommend you'd be more accurate in relating the US to whichever country you're in, instead of making statements on the positions of people around the globe in which you seem naive on their governments and history.
This requires a much longer thesis. In short, war throughout history is quite a centrist position (since it's been waged extensively by both left and rightists). Right now you have the Democrats advocating for defense of a nation against invasion, and a leftist government (Venezuela) advocating for the invasion and annexation of Guyana. When leftist governments aren't advocating for industrial military (USSR), global armed revolution and killing, it's usually said through the privilege and zero-skin-in-the-game safety of being under the US' defensive shield, or it's Pol Pot.
> Democrats is to preserve the status quo in all matters: social
Quite humorous to most global onlookers, I'm sure, as most would not be fond of some Democrats' constant push for "social justice."
> don't forget about Europe when establishing your list of countries to define a global overton window
Europe is 9.3% of the world. Half of which wouldn't agree with you since there are still many right wing governments in Europe and 41% of France voted for Le Pen.
So again, I'd recommend you'd be more accurate in relating the US to whichever country you're in, instead of making statements on the positions of people around the globe in which you seem naive on their governments and history.
Rather than address these points line-by-line, there is a bigger issue at play: a difference in understanding (or opinion?) over what the Overton window is. This is particularly evident in that you cite Europe as 9.3% of the world as relevant to defining it.
The Overton window mainly classifies the kind of ideas that are "politically acceptable" on the stage for which it's defined, using terms ranging from "unthinkable" to "radical" to "popular" to "policy". On the world stage, I would argue that the most left-leaning of European countries define the left end of the window (given that they have enacted left policies), and the most right-leaning countries (e.g. Singapore) define the right end of the window. It's not a matter of proportion.
That said, I agree that the global window is rapidly shifting right, as in your example of France.
Okay, point-by-point:
> Military
I agree that the military does not neatly fit into a spectrum which applies well on the global window of left/right. Reaching instead for political philosophy rather than political practice, I think it's better to introduce the 2-dimensional political compass to understand this rather than relying on the 1-dimensional left/right spectrum: war is more favored by authoritarian politics (which is to say politics that value authority, rather than necessarily repressive regimes, which are totalitarian). I would also say that authoritarianism tends to be more popular on the right, though the Soviet Union offers a clear counter-example. This issue is messy indeed. But, generally speaking, I think that American leftists (as a distinct group from liberals or Democrats) are not in favor of war, whereas everyone right of and including Democrats are generally pro-military and weakly or strongly in favor of American imperialism.
> Social justice
"Social justice" is ill-defined here, and I don't really think Democrats push for it. A positive "social justice", as I understand it, might, for instance, consider reparations, which I don't think any contemporary Democrats have pushed for. Democrats adopt a more equality-oriented (not equity-oriented, which I would argue is more aligned with what "social justice" calls for) approach to social issues, outside of certain matters like ostensible support for affirmative action.
But, I don't think this is the thread to define and argue over whatever "social justice" means. You can send me an email if you want to clear that up.
The Overton window mainly classifies the kind of ideas that are "politically acceptable" on the stage for which it's defined, using terms ranging from "unthinkable" to "radical" to "popular" to "policy". On the world stage, I would argue that the most left-leaning of European countries define the left end of the window (given that they have enacted left policies), and the most right-leaning countries (e.g. Singapore) define the right end of the window. It's not a matter of proportion.
That said, I agree that the global window is rapidly shifting right, as in your example of France.
Okay, point-by-point:
> Military
I agree that the military does not neatly fit into a spectrum which applies well on the global window of left/right. Reaching instead for political philosophy rather than political practice, I think it's better to introduce the 2-dimensional political compass to understand this rather than relying on the 1-dimensional left/right spectrum: war is more favored by authoritarian politics (which is to say politics that value authority, rather than necessarily repressive regimes, which are totalitarian). I would also say that authoritarianism tends to be more popular on the right, though the Soviet Union offers a clear counter-example. This issue is messy indeed. But, generally speaking, I think that American leftists (as a distinct group from liberals or Democrats) are not in favor of war, whereas everyone right of and including Democrats are generally pro-military and weakly or strongly in favor of American imperialism.
> Social justice
"Social justice" is ill-defined here, and I don't really think Democrats push for it. A positive "social justice", as I understand it, might, for instance, consider reparations, which I don't think any contemporary Democrats have pushed for. Democrats adopt a more equality-oriented (not equity-oriented, which I would argue is more aligned with what "social justice" calls for) approach to social issues, outside of certain matters like ostensible support for affirmative action.
But, I don't think this is the thread to define and argue over whatever "social justice" means. You can send me an email if you want to clear that up.
> On the world stage, I would argue that the most left-leaning of European countries define the left end of the window (given that they have enacted left policies), and the most right-leaning countries (e.g. Singapore) define the right end of the window
Is Singapore really among "the most right-leaning countries"?
In 2022, Singapore decriminalised male-male sex. In over 60 countries worldwide it is still a crime, and in over 10 of those it has the death penalty (at least in theory).
While it has been criticised on religious freedom (for banning certain controversial groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Hare Krishnas and the Unification Church) – it still is greatly ahead in this area of countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia. The government is officially neutral between the major religions, and there is no capital punishment for essentially religious offences such as apostasy, blasphemy, or heresy.
Economically, Singapore deviates in a number of ways from right-wing economic orthodoxy – state-owned enterprises play a major role in its economy, close to 80% of its population lives in government-owned public housing, the government runs a universal public health system.
Is Singapore really among "the most right-leaning countries"?
In 2022, Singapore decriminalised male-male sex. In over 60 countries worldwide it is still a crime, and in over 10 of those it has the death penalty (at least in theory).
While it has been criticised on religious freedom (for banning certain controversial groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Hare Krishnas and the Unification Church) – it still is greatly ahead in this area of countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia. The government is officially neutral between the major religions, and there is no capital punishment for essentially religious offences such as apostasy, blasphemy, or heresy.
Economically, Singapore deviates in a number of ways from right-wing economic orthodoxy – state-owned enterprises play a major role in its economy, close to 80% of its population lives in government-owned public housing, the government runs a universal public health system.
> The Overton window has shifted hard to the right in the United States,
Economically or socially and over what sort of time scale?
Economically or socially and over what sort of time scale?
I'm not sure the overton window applies too much to economic policy in the US at this point; it's essentially hardline liberal capitalism in the Democrats, and liberal captalism with a kleptocracic chaser in the Republican party. Like I said, the entire US political system is united in its unquestioning faith in liberal capitalist economics, the window is very narrow. Democrats will make overtures towards unions, but will never step up to support them when it comes to policy.
As for social policy, it is heading to the right, gaining momentum in the years leading to Trump and making steady gains since. I would characterize the social overton window in the US as the Democrats nailing the left end of the window the wall and Republicans systemically dragging the right end further and further right.
As for social policy, it is heading to the right, gaining momentum in the years leading to Trump and making steady gains since. I would characterize the social overton window in the US as the Democrats nailing the left end of the window the wall and Republicans systemically dragging the right end further and further right.
Could you name a few countries that are more socially to the left than the US? Let's say with regards to abortion rights, LGBTQ debates, college admissions, immigration, racism.
For context, I'm not white, not American, not christian so I guess I have a different pov, but to me Europe was much much more socially to the right than the US. Maybe it's different when you are white in Europe though :)
For context, I'm not white, not American, not christian so I guess I have a different pov, but to me Europe was much much more socially to the right than the US. Maybe it's different when you are white in Europe though :)
Interesting. What sort of opinions are now in the window that weren't 20 years ago?
Abortion rights is big one.
Are you seriously suggesting that abortion wasn't talked about heavily 20 years ago? You don't remember Clinton pushing against people opposed to abortion saying he wanted them to be safe, legal and rare?
Progressive = left = democrat (very roughly)
For the US:
Moderate: between Republican and Democrat.
Progressive: left of Democrat
Moderate: between Republican and Democrat.
Progressive: left of Democrat
No one knows what you mean by left and right.
Obviously we're talking about who sits where in the Assembly of post-revolutionary France.
"Left" and "right" are common parlance throughout the world. Where, roughly, "left" favours collectivism and social responsibility, and "right" favours individualism and liberalism (classical sense, not American sense).
Those are horoscopes. They may be commonly understood, (although you're wrong about how people use left and right as well) but if you want to call yourself left, you can match those statements to your opinions, and likewise if you call yourself right. So it is still the case that no one knows what you're talking about.
Liberty is a function of an extraordinarily strong social contract. If you don't have strong enforcement of rights, you don't have rights.
Liberty is a function of an extraordinarily strong social contract. If you don't have strong enforcement of rights, you don't have rights.
In US terms.
Progressive is Left. Their pet terrorist loot the school, the Target, or the Walmart.
Despite what the article says, we have no moderates.
Conservative is right. Their pet terrorists take guns and shoot up the school, the Target, or the Walmart. (And occasionally, a church here or there).
That's US politics in a nutshell.
Progressive is Left. Their pet terrorist loot the school, the Target, or the Walmart.
Despite what the article says, we have no moderates.
Conservative is right. Their pet terrorists take guns and shoot up the school, the Target, or the Walmart. (And occasionally, a church here or there).
That's US politics in a nutshell.
Ridiculous and deranged take. No one on the right will endorse mass-shooters. You have plenty of people on the left willing to make excuses for their looters because "muh socioeconomic factors".
If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, don't post it on social media.
The deleted tweet is really bad, and can't be brushed off with "sorry, the booze made me do it."
"If you are with [progressive supes] then FU too" makes me wonder how employees, YC applicants, and others are treated if they are so aligned or appear to be. A laptop sticker or T-shirt with one of these names on it would be noticed, not to mention social media posts or "following" status.
YC portrays itself as a meritocracy and striving to find the right or the best founders. If the top officer is filled with such resentment, I don't see how that doesn't cloud the YC environment and the types of founders who are invited to participate.
"If you are with [progressive supes] then FU too" makes me wonder how employees, YC applicants, and others are treated if they are so aligned or appear to be. A laptop sticker or T-shirt with one of these names on it would be noticed, not to mention social media posts or "following" status.
YC portrays itself as a meritocracy and striving to find the right or the best founders. If the top officer is filled with such resentment, I don't see how that doesn't cloud the YC environment and the types of founders who are invited to participate.
YC shouldn't become a no-go zone for anyone who leans "progressive".
To quote the late great Norm Macdonald, this might strike some viewers as harsh...
I love Hit 'em Up, and I really dislike the supervisors in question.
But man, doing this is at best cringe, and at worst extremely unprofessional
But man, doing this is at best cringe, and at worst extremely unprofessional
[deleted]
Is anyone helping Garry? He's very obviously going through something.
He should be charged with inciting those death threat letters. If I would post something like that on social media to my 5k followers, and one of them was inspired to commit a crime soon afterwards, I’d be facing criminal charges.
San Francisco DA should look into charges and hold Mr. Tan accountable for his behavior.
San Francisco DA should look into charges and hold Mr. Tan accountable for his behavior.
Did anyone else get blocked on Twitter by Garry for liking a tweet critical of his San Francisco housing policies?
> “This mail was sent to communicate a political opinion. No threats were intended.”
When I was a kid I formed a core memory when I said “no offence, but…” and then said something incredibly offensive and was subsequently and rightfully lit right up by the person. “But I said no offence!” was my response, completely misunderstanding how that phrase even worked.
I feel like this is the adult version of that.
When I was a kid I formed a core memory when I said “no offence, but…” and then said something incredibly offensive and was subsequently and rightfully lit right up by the person. “But I said no offence!” was my response, completely misunderstanding how that phrase even worked.
I feel like this is the adult version of that.
It reminds me of the "in Minecraft" meme (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/in-minecraft). Note, the law doesn't work like that: https://kotaku.com/minecraft-death-threat-4chan-pol-shooter-...
I think we're all children, over time we just pickup the desire / will to just use different words sometimes.
there are really strong federal laws about what you can send through the mail.
ok but he's right though https://old.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/hthfgb/aaron_peski...
Garry is lost in the rat race of politics and is clearly crushing himself under the pressure of his own ego. I would not trust the future of ycombinator to someone who cannot articulate in a disagreement. What things is he saying behind closed doors that will be revealed?
"When asked if she felt personally threatened by Tan’s behavior, Chan responded “Seeing what my colleague[s] received in the mail? Yes, absolutely. I have a 10-year-old. I do not tell people where my child attends school.”"
"When asked if she felt personally threatened by Tan’s behavior, Chan responded “Seeing what my colleague[s] received in the mail? Yes, absolutely. I have a 10-year-old. I do not tell people where my child attends school.”"
Any statement from the YC partnership?
Garry Tan needs to go. This is not CEO behavior.
> This is not CEO behavior
Prescriptively, you are right, but descriptively, for a particular subset of Silicon Valley CEOs, it seems pretty on-character.
Prescriptively, you are right, but descriptively, for a particular subset of Silicon Valley CEOs, it seems pretty on-character.
Which is one reason why so many people hate SV. This kind of behavior is just terrible. How do we have so many manbabies getting in charge of things?
30 years ago a guy that worked as an international translator said to me, if people only knew how their political and business leaders act when they don't think anyone important is watching. They are all terrible people. Another friend deals with the Hollywood and Television elites; most of them are human trash. They can act nice when it suits them. And they'll happily be ruthless, vindictive and petty otherwise.
The nice thing now is ordinary people to get to see this.
The nice thing now is ordinary people to get to see this.
> How do we have so many manbabies getting in charge of things?
> 30 years ago a guy that worked as an international translator said to me, if people only knew how their political and business leaders act when they don't think anyone important is watching.
> The nice thing now is ordinary people to get to see this.
Ordinary people like you and me are inherently no more virtuous and have said things that we would be ashamed of if seen publicly. The difference is that we, unlike the Tans and Musks of the world, don't have a reality-distortion-field of wealth - and even worse: adulation - that makes us feel we can express our worst and ugliest impulses.
Our mistake is in raising business leaders to demigod status in the first place. We shouldn't then be surprised when that goes to their heads.
> 30 years ago a guy that worked as an international translator said to me, if people only knew how their political and business leaders act when they don't think anyone important is watching.
> The nice thing now is ordinary people to get to see this.
Ordinary people like you and me are inherently no more virtuous and have said things that we would be ashamed of if seen publicly. The difference is that we, unlike the Tans and Musks of the world, don't have a reality-distortion-field of wealth - and even worse: adulation - that makes us feel we can express our worst and ugliest impulses.
Our mistake is in raising business leaders to demigod status in the first place. We shouldn't then be surprised when that goes to their heads.
I keep coming back to something Judge Posner got completely wrong. He thinks wealth people don't commit crimes because they value their reputation. Middle class don't because they value their money. And poor don't because they don't want to go to jail.
Which is backwards. Poor people's reputation is the most valuable thing they have.
Which is backwards. Poor people's reputation is the most valuable thing they have.
He is fabulously wealthy and his private stash is... Macallan 18?! It seems no amount of money can substitute nonexistent personality and improve poor taste...
I recently lost another friend to Fentanyl. The policy of SF sups actually kills people, like my friend. The policy of Leftist supervisors who defend huge open air drug markets can be directly linked to thousands of deaths in San Francisco and tens of thousands in the Bay Area.
This is an example of caring more about what people say than what people actually do.
For a generation who is so proud of itself, Millennials, your results suck. Where are your accomplishments?
This is an example of caring more about what people say than what people actually do.
For a generation who is so proud of itself, Millennials, your results suck. Where are your accomplishments?
Virtually every supervisor on the current board appears to be Gen X
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Board_of_Super...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Board_of_Super...
What a terrible human being, why would anyone want to be involved with Y Combinator or any of their companies that would put up with this sort of behavior?
He's always been a very strange person. Blocks everyone who disagree, insults freely. I'm surprised it's taken this long honestly
I was happy to see the story caught that it was Tupac song lyrics, which I see also was picked up in the previous HN discussion. While it's not really laudable behavior, quoting some lyrics that in almost 30 years hindsight are pretty silly is not quite as threatening as people make out. Probably better to stay off social media when drinking all the same.
I don't understand why the fact that his words happen to be song lyrics somehow softens the blow. If I wrote to my government representative "go hang yourself with a barbed wire" I'd expect it to be taken seriously as a threat. It doesn't matter that the Gravediggaz originally wrote the lyric.
If you said "I'm the Rza-rector, be my sacrifice" though?
I think the fact that it's lyrics can make a big difference to the assumed intent. It's a young guy quoting an angry poem vs an actual threat.
I think the fact that it's lyrics can make a big difference to the assumed intent. It's a young guy quoting an angry poem vs an actual threat.
There's a Key and Peele sketch in this vein: Rap Album Confessions.[1]
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14WE3A0PwVs
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14WE3A0PwVs
"It was a concept album"
because this only matters if you somehow benefit from it; either with virtue points on the internet, or political points in the media.
That's obviously not a threat. Just like saying "go fuck yourself" isn't a threat of rape.
"Die slow" is pretty ambiguous though.
"Die slow" is pretty ambiguous though.
30 years ago those lyrics were threatening, written by, and targeting violent people. They weren't innocent, it wasn't some fantasy, these were people making music about their lives.
This is a tech VC going up against season politicians.
Did you notice the article tries to mix up Tan’s letter with “antisemitic” letters also received? Those are irrelevant, but very politically savvy to try and equate the two.
Gary stepped on his own dick with this move. If you want to beat them, you need to play the game better than they do.
Did you notice the article tries to mix up Tan’s letter with “antisemitic” letters also received? Those are irrelevant, but very politically savvy to try and equate the two.
Gary stepped on his own dick with this move. If you want to beat them, you need to play the game better than they do.
I feel like if I said "die slow, motherfuckers" here, that'd be justified grounds for a ban.
It's really, really fucking stupid to do this, and even worse as a leader of an influential and impactful organization.
Also - is Hacker News independent from Garry Tan's influence? If so, what assurances of that are there? If not, what can be done to ensure he never touches HN?
It's really, really fucking stupid to do this, and even worse as a leader of an influential and impactful organization.
Also - is Hacker News independent from Garry Tan's influence? If so, what assurances of that are there? If not, what can be done to ensure he never touches HN?
It is not free of influence. This site is incredibly biased in it's moderation. I will be surprised if this comment doesn't get flagged and taken down.
A case of "you had one job". It should be possible to criticize people without wishing death on them (or saying something that can be construed as wishing death on them). But oh no, that's too much for some people I guess.
Whats a supervisor in this context?
"San Francisco" is simultaneously a county and city.
San Francisco Supervisors are members of the San Francisco Board Of Supervisors.
same thing as a city council.
https://sfbos.org/
https://sfbos.org/
Would this CEO have gotten the same backlash if he said similar things about, say, Trump, or some adjacent S.F. supervisor?
Not asking whether they would have gotten _some_ backlash (of course they would), but whether they would have gotten the same backlash, from the same media and people giving it to Gerry now, and whether it would be as effective to get them getting some board discipline and/or have them relieved from their positions.
It's ok to say "but those are bad people and would have deserved it, while the ones Tan targetted are good". It comes off as a little strong, but at least it's an understandable and cohesive political stance.
It's also fine to say "No, saying such things is a no-no, no matter which is the target, period.".
But it's a little hypocritical when people who claim the latter in this case, to ignore or even applaud similar comments when they're in line with their politics.
Not asking whether they would have gotten _some_ backlash (of course they would), but whether they would have gotten the same backlash, from the same media and people giving it to Gerry now, and whether it would be as effective to get them getting some board discipline and/or have them relieved from their positions.
It's ok to say "but those are bad people and would have deserved it, while the ones Tan targetted are good". It comes off as a little strong, but at least it's an understandable and cohesive political stance.
It's also fine to say "No, saying such things is a no-no, no matter which is the target, period.".
But it's a little hypocritical when people who claim the latter in this case, to ignore or even applaud similar comments when they're in line with their politics.
I’m a big fan of YC, HN, and Garry Tan.
I’d love to support Garry politically to get SF back to its roots and to put math back in schools.
Unfortunately Garry has blocked me on X for no good reason that I can think of?
I’d love to support Garry politically to get SF back to its roots and to put math back in schools.
Unfortunately Garry has blocked me on X for no good reason that I can think of?
What the hell is going on in Silicon Valley? You all ok over there?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Tan is right... The SF supervisors policies and voting has literally resulted in many deaths.
“Garry Tan is right!” the letter sent to Peskin, Preston and, perhaps, others read. “I wish a slow and painful death for you and your loved ones.”
Bizarrely, the letter to Preston and Peskin concluded: “This mail was sent to communicate a political opinion. No threats were intended.”
Does anyone honestly believe that this was sent by a supporter of Garry Tan?
Is that required? If you're prominent and write something like this, you shouldn't be surprised when people who hate the same people will weaponize it with glee and use it to feel justified in their actions, even if they didn't follow you before.
I think the tweet from Garry is bad enough.
Fact is nobody but the sender knows. Easily could have been sent for many reasons.
Yyyyyyyes?
First day on the internet?
First day on the internet?
probably written by someone who just wants to stir shit and it looks like they succeeded. they got attention from a newspaper, frightened the supe and brought negative attention to Garry Tan.
Your brain is broken.
It should be unacceptable for someone in a leadership position to act so dangerously juvenile, but it is the era of Trump. Speaking your mind can be done in ways that aren't basically death wishes.
More than anything, it's surprising more aren't calling for him to step down.
WTF? That's the CEO of Hacker News?
[deleted]
First tell me you've never wished a person dead aloud, not even once.
I've probably done it two or three times. I've wished people dead quietly, maybe about 10 times. Never actually killed anyone. One person I wished dead, did die (of leukemia), probably, unfortunately, slow and painfully.
Here's someone I would right now, wish a slow and painful death, publically. Vladimir Putin.
come after me with an accusation of a death threat.
I've probably done it two or three times. I've wished people dead quietly, maybe about 10 times. Never actually killed anyone. One person I wished dead, did die (of leukemia), probably, unfortunately, slow and painfully.
Here's someone I would right now, wish a slow and painful death, publically. Vladimir Putin.
come after me with an accusation of a death threat.
I’ve never wished a person dead aloud, not even once :)
easy to start. Wish vladimir putin dead.
have never had that wish at all personally, tbh
This was discussed already https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39162499 and there's no real news since. It's a dupe.
The new part of this article is the physical letters that were sent to some of the people mentioned in the tweet. That hadn't happened when the previously-discussed article was written.
(Edited to add: However, an article discussed yesterday in a now-flagged discussion did have the letters: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39199703 )
(Edited to add: However, an article discussed yesterday in a now-flagged discussion did have the letters: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39199703 )
[deleted]
[deleted]
The manchildren share inherit the Earth.
Drunk texting is never good.
Lmao someone was listening to too much 2pac and drinking. Literally right out of “Hit Em Up”. Don’t think he was being serious, but still not a good look for a CEO.
Clearly this was reprehensible behavior by Tan, but this article is a mess. It's conflating unrelated white supremacist threats and Tan's comments, and doesn't really go into why Tan doesn't like Preston, leaving the reader to conclude "maybe it's something to do with racism? Or maybe because he's a socialist and it's discrimination?"
(Hint: Dean Preston is notorious for blocking new housing, while being nominally progressive)
This doesn't excuse Tan's comments in any way, but it seemed like the author just threw the kitchen sink into the article
(Hint: Dean Preston is notorious for blocking new housing, while being nominally progressive)
This doesn't excuse Tan's comments in any way, but it seemed like the author just threw the kitchen sink into the article
The threat cited Tan's threatening tweet - certainly not "unrelated".
> Stochastic terrorism refers to political or media figures publicly demonizing a person or group in such a way that it inspires supporters of the figures to commit a violent act against the target of the speech. Unlike incitement to terrorism, this is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence. Global trends point to increasing violent rhetoric and political violence, including more evidence of stochastic terrorism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism
> Stochastic terrorism refers to political or media figures publicly demonizing a person or group in such a way that it inspires supporters of the figures to commit a violent act against the target of the speech. Unlike incitement to terrorism, this is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence. Global trends point to increasing violent rhetoric and political violence, including more evidence of stochastic terrorism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism
Wow, how is this guy in charge of anything? He seems so puerile.
Does this make Garry Tan “the supe Nazi”?
(I’ll show myself out)
(I’ll show myself out)
The number of people trying to defend what is, at best, extremely childish behavior is fascinating to me. Would you really go up to your city counselor in real life and tell them you wish death on them and their family, and pretend it's OK because it's an obscure reference to 90s rap (mind you the rap song WAS an actual death threat)? Do you think you'd be met with laughter? Do you actually consider that socially acceptable behavior?
If you dislike their politics, so be it - donate to campaigns or personally run against them. Write a letter explaining how you'd like them to vote.. But the amount of absolute crass behavior people allow "because it's the internet" is mind boggling.
If you dislike their politics, so be it - donate to campaigns or personally run against them. Write a letter explaining how you'd like them to vote.. But the amount of absolute crass behavior people allow "because it's the internet" is mind boggling.
> If you dislike their politics, so be it - donate to campaigns or personally run against them. Write a letter explaining how you'd like them to vote.. But the amount of absolute crass behavior people allow "because it's the internet" is mind boggling.
I don't even think it's "because it's the internet." "In Real Life" political discourse has been getting significantly more and more crass and more and more belligerent in the last 10-15 years. Go over to YouTube and bring up some Reagan-Mondale or Clinton-Bush debates and compare their tone and temperament to what we see today. People still felt strongly about the issues back then, but we weren't so constantly hurling threats and potty-mouth insults all over the place like today.
I don't even think it's "because it's the internet." "In Real Life" political discourse has been getting significantly more and more crass and more and more belligerent in the last 10-15 years. Go over to YouTube and bring up some Reagan-Mondale or Clinton-Bush debates and compare their tone and temperament to what we see today. People still felt strongly about the issues back then, but we weren't so constantly hurling threats and potty-mouth insults all over the place like today.
We've had things like a sitting vice president kill a secretary of the treasury (and Founding Father) in a duel, over political insults. I make two points with this. The first is that obviously the past was far from some era of restrained gentleman, but the second is that I think words used to have a lot more meaning.
And that's because in modern times we've been rapidly diluting the meaning of basically everything by endlessly resorting to inappropriate hyperbole. This makes it difficult to express things and practically impossible to express an extreme feeling without resorting to the sort of hyperbole that makes hyperbole look restrained, which is what this thread is ultimately about.
It'd be nice if we returned to the era of words having meaning, but the era of the internet probably makes that impossible.
And that's because in modern times we've been rapidly diluting the meaning of basically everything by endlessly resorting to inappropriate hyperbole. This makes it difficult to express things and practically impossible to express an extreme feeling without resorting to the sort of hyperbole that makes hyperbole look restrained, which is what this thread is ultimately about.
It'd be nice if we returned to the era of words having meaning, but the era of the internet probably makes that impossible.
[deleted]
Really amusing aside. This article, "Shitshow! Britain’s potty-mouthed parliament", was just published: https://www.politico.eu/article/britains-potty-mouthed-parli...
That stiff upper lip has, perhaps, become a bit more relaxed.
That stiff upper lip has, perhaps, become a bit more relaxed.
> Go over to YouTube and bring up some Reagan-Mondale or Clinton-Bush debates and compare their tone and temperament to what we see today.
Reminded me of a fascinating video I recall; Bush and Reagan debate illegal immigration in 1980's primary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsmgPp_nlok
They sound more liberal than half of today's Democrats.
Reminded me of a fascinating video I recall; Bush and Reagan debate illegal immigration in 1980's primary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsmgPp_nlok
They sound more liberal than half of today's Democrats.
The positioning to me (which drifts over time) is less interesting than the higher quality of the discourse.
Granted, this was in a smaller venue, but seeing H.W. actually consider the question on the spot and deliver an on-topic, detailed answer outlining his position was... refreshing.
Presumption that the question is valid and interesting, the asker is to be respected, and supporters of the platform espoused and opponents have good points and should be respected.
Empathetic disagreement is not something you typically see anywhere recently. It's been boiled down to staccato sound bites.
Granted, this was in a smaller venue, but seeing H.W. actually consider the question on the spot and deliver an on-topic, detailed answer outlining his position was... refreshing.
Presumption that the question is valid and interesting, the asker is to be respected, and supporters of the platform espoused and opponents have good points and should be respected.
Empathetic disagreement is not something you typically see anywhere recently. It's been boiled down to staccato sound bites.
> They sound more liberal than half of today's Democrats.
As classic liberals, they actually were.
As classic liberals, they actually were.
That's cool and all, but I didn't say classical liberalism.
Sorry if i wasn't more specific. I was intending to highlight the commonality and overlap between classic liberal philosophy what we identify as modern upper case Liberals.
I think the video does a good job of highlighting how many classic liberals actually had the same tenants and objectives, such as respect, compassion, and human development.
I think the video does a good job of highlighting how many classic liberals actually had the same tenants and objectives, such as respect, compassion, and human development.
"In Real Life" political discourse has been getting significantly more and more crass and more and more belligerent in the last 10-15 years.
Just ask Paul Pelosi. IANAL, I don't know what the legal definition of a credible threat is, but I completely empathize with these politicians who might be wary of what someone with the resources of Tan may do directly or incite.
Just ask Paul Pelosi. IANAL, I don't know what the legal definition of a credible threat is, but I completely empathize with these politicians who might be wary of what someone with the resources of Tan may do directly or incite.
When the center repeatedly fails to deliver meaningful reform, the extremes will attempt to fill the void.
It certainly doesn't help his case.
I agree. We need to bring civility and basic respect, for the institution, back into our public discourse.
I agree. We need to bring civility and basic respect, for the institution, back into our public discourse.
Unfortunately social media doesn't recompensate those using a measured tone to communicate with others, civility seems to be ineffective nowadays if your objective is to produce any political impact because outrage (as a conduit for discourse) spreads more easily.
imo the biggest issue was not the content of the tweet itself but the getting really mad and drunk tweeting. neither particularly professional nor politically wise for someone who is the head of a major institution in the startup world and a figurehead for (much-needed) political reform in sf. the actual words having crossed the line is sort of downstream of firing tweets from the hip while mad and drunk.
he basically needs to step down from the podium now or he's going to hurt the cause of making sf better, which is really unfortunate.
he basically needs to step down from the podium now or he's going to hurt the cause of making sf better, which is really unfortunate.
I disagree, it's the content. While I don't think many would interpret as a legitimate death threat... it is adjacent, and quoting what was more or less a death threat which contributed to murder.
Altering consciousness is a human trait which I support in the end. Doing unreasonable things while in altered states is a consequence, and likewise fine as long as things as nobody really gets hurt.
Saying strange things or stirring up controversy by having unpopular opinions or hurting someone's feelings a little... not a big problem. Apologize and move on.
What happened here is pretty far across the line, though.
It was pretty close to a death threat and served to encourage others to get even closer. I'm not quite sure if it should be illegal, but it should get a public figure fired.
Altering consciousness is a human trait which I support in the end. Doing unreasonable things while in altered states is a consequence, and likewise fine as long as things as nobody really gets hurt.
Saying strange things or stirring up controversy by having unpopular opinions or hurting someone's feelings a little... not a big problem. Apologize and move on.
What happened here is pretty far across the line, though.
It was pretty close to a death threat and served to encourage others to get even closer. I'm not quite sure if it should be illegal, but it should get a public figure fired.
Yesterday, I read someone mock HN as "Corporate Apologism News". Quite accurate in this case.
Silicon Valley is fun that way - tons of smart people who’s eyes slowly shift out of focus and minds slip into a stupor when confronted with their participation in helping the most horrible people alive ruin the world.
Money blinds. The price for those nice comp packages is complicity in the descent into neofeudalism.
The funny thing is the money doesn’t even go that far in Silicon Valley! You’d often be better off making less comp but living nearly anywhere else in the world.
My theory is the real reason for the return to office mandates is to keep employees stuck in a situation where they are compelled to chase big comp and compromise whatever morals they once had just to put food on the table.
My theory is the real reason for the return to office mandates is to keep employees stuck in a situation where they are compelled to chase big comp and compromise whatever morals they once had just to put food on the table.
Silicon Valley is just an inefficient value transfer mechanism from society (by digitizing everything) to SF land owners.
I am conflicted on this because I like to speak my mind. Having said that, I am a nobody so usually no one cares. My wife always tells me "It's not the what but the how you say it". Gary being such a popular figure probably should have worded it better. However, I do worry that there is too much criticism these days when someone speaks their mind.
EDIT: I see people making a fair point about "too much criticism" as it sort of contradicts what I said about "speak my mind". I guess my worry is not about free speech or other people just criticizing but more of the woke crowd that just wants to cancel you because they disagree. I should have clarified that in initial comment.
EDIT: I see people making a fair point about "too much criticism" as it sort of contradicts what I said about "speak my mind". I guess my worry is not about free speech or other people just criticizing but more of the woke crowd that just wants to cancel you because they disagree. I should have clarified that in initial comment.
> I am conflicted on this because I like to speak my mind.
> However, I do worry that there is too much criticism these days when someone speaks their mind.
You don’t need to feel conflicted. Just think of that “too much criticism” as people who disagree with the initial take as speaking their mind in response.
> However, I do worry that there is too much criticism these days when someone speaks their mind.
You don’t need to feel conflicted. Just think of that “too much criticism” as people who disagree with the initial take as speaking their mind in response.
I was just thinking that.
How can you be in support of Freedom of Speech,
and at the same time be out here saying there is "too much criticism"?
It doesn't make any sense.
How can you be in support of Freedom of Speech,
and at the same time be out here saying there is "too much criticism"?
It doesn't make any sense.
The first is about rights to do something, the second is opinion on what others should do.
e.g. "I support the right of people to eat what they want, but really wish they ate less junk food."
With respect to criticism, I tend to agree in general. I wish people spent less time giving importance or fixating on random dumb or offensive things people say.
e.g. "I support the right of people to eat what they want, but really wish they ate less junk food."
With respect to criticism, I tend to agree in general. I wish people spent less time giving importance or fixating on random dumb or offensive things people say.
You’re getting really close to understanding.
I think that misses the point that most people have on this topic.
You can support the right of people to express their opinions, but disagree and regret what those opinions are.
You can support the right of people to express their opinions, but disagree and regret what those opinions are.
> I guess my worry is not about free speech or other people just criticizing but more of the woke crowd that just wants to cancel you because they disagree.
What's wrong with the "woke crowd?" Is that not merely a nebulous group of people who have political opinions with which you disagree? What's wrong with them wanting to "cancel" you? Is that not an exercise of free speech and free association? Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences. "Cancellation" just a social consequence, is it not?
Behind each of these question marks is nuance: I like Ken White's treatment of the topic: https://popehat.substack.com/p/our-fundamental-right-to-sham...
What's wrong with the "woke crowd?" Is that not merely a nebulous group of people who have political opinions with which you disagree? What's wrong with them wanting to "cancel" you? Is that not an exercise of free speech and free association? Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences. "Cancellation" just a social consequence, is it not?
Behind each of these question marks is nuance: I like Ken White's treatment of the topic: https://popehat.substack.com/p/our-fundamental-right-to-sham...
[deleted]
His comment was beyond the pale and inexcusable. Not because of his political position, but because expressing the wish for a slow death of people because you disagree with them is never OK, regardless of what your politics are.
What does inexcusable mean?. It seems like nearly everything thinks it wasn't cool and dumb, so what next?
"Inexcusable" means that there is no valid excuse for it.
I guess what I meant to ask what the implications or consequences of it being inexcusable are. When someone says that, what do they want to happen?
Do they just want people to acknowledge it was bad, and then everyone goes on with their life? Do the police make them wear a scarlet letter or send them out into the wilderness. Does it mean they are no longer invited to dinner parties?
Do they just want people to acknowledge it was bad, and then everyone goes on with their life? Do the police make them wear a scarlet letter or send them out into the wilderness. Does it mean they are no longer invited to dinner parties?
Getting drunk and posting death threats on a social media platform beloved by unhinged bigots isn’t “speaking your mind”, it’s incitement.
I like to speak my mind as well, but I haven’t ever listed a bunch of colleagues names and then wished death on them. Actually I’m not sure he could have worded it better: what’s the good way to deliver that message?
I don’t understand your premise. Criticism is other people speaking their mind. It sounds like you want to speak your mind and dislike when others do in response. What is your thought process exactly?
I don't understand the rant either. Tan already has a platform. If he wants to "hurt" someone, wouldn't cold facts and logic work the best? What's the point of ranting some nonsense?
[deleted]
I’ve received death threats from representatives of local non profits for advocating to build more houses in San Francisco. It’s not that surprising when people observe that the outrage over this incident is arguably insincere, even if the original tweet was inappropriate.
Surely the takeaway here is "death threats bad", not "death threats good"?
Those aren’t the only options. “Death threats bad, but this one overblown for political reasons” is perfectly within the realm of reasonable opinion. Across the bay, an actual supervisor resigned last week due to real and persistent death threats. Yet somehow that is not getting nearly the attention that a retracted tweet is. Similarly, Scott Wiener the local state senator has been harassed by online trolls for years and has needed a security detail posted at his house. Yet the same politicians crying foul over a tweet could not bring themselves to pass a resolution condemning death threats against him by actual psychos because Wiener is not in their political faction.
Because the supes didn’t formally pass a resolution about Scott Wiener, it’s hypocritical of them to informally criticize any kind of dear threat?
No that’s not what I said. Also, they haven’t “informally criticized” a death threat. They’ve asked the city attorney to draft a law against it and filed police reports, in addition to having their favorite reporters prolong the news cycle. Don’t downplay the extent of the pearl clutching.
This is the main reason I'm not currently registered to vote. The f-ers at the voting offices leaked my address without my permission, and then I de-registered and moved.
I don't currently have anything worthy of a death threat but if I ever do in the future, I'd prefer the public not know where I sleep.
Also, f all forms of KYC. Half of those companies end up getting hacked or leaking data at some point in the future.
I don't currently have anything worthy of a death threat but if I ever do in the future, I'd prefer the public not know where I sleep.
Also, f all forms of KYC. Half of those companies end up getting hacked or leaking data at some point in the future.
Voter registration information, including voter address, is public information. Nobody leaked it. They gave your address to someone who asked, in accordance with the law.
> Voter registration information, including voter address, is public information. Nobody leaked it.
People keep parroting this but it shouldn't be public information. Personal safety is more important than the law, as is established in the universal unalienable rights. Where I sleep is emphatically NOT public information. Period.
Until the law is changed to ensure my physical safety I see no reason to re-register.
People keep parroting this but it shouldn't be public information. Personal safety is more important than the law, as is established in the universal unalienable rights. Where I sleep is emphatically NOT public information. Period.
Until the law is changed to ensure my physical safety I see no reason to re-register.
Shouldn't and is required to by law are two different things. So yeah, maybe it shouldn't be public information, but the fact that it is, and is legally required to be, means that your information wasn't "leaked".
No, it was leaked, against my consent.
The government doing something against my personal safety and consent in the name of the law doesn't make it not a leak.
The government doing something against my personal safety and consent in the name of the law doesn't make it not a leak.
>The number of people trying to defend what is, at best, extremely childish behavior is fascinating to me.
While I am not going to say that there is a phenomenon akin to sycophant Olympics performed for the benefit of an audience of a single dunce king going on here,
While I am not going to say that there is a phenomenon akin to sycophant Olympics performed for the benefit of an audience of a single dunce king going on here,
General rule of thumb -- if you're tempted to say anything that references "Hit Em Up" [0], don't do it on main.
Or, you know, just be drunk off of Twitter?
Elon barely gets away with it, and everyone else isn't that rich.
[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ugD3_yt756w (goes without saying, but NSFW)
Or, you know, just be drunk off of Twitter?
Elon barely gets away with it, and everyone else isn't that rich.
[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ugD3_yt756w (goes without saying, but NSFW)
Elon getting away with it is the problem. Broken windows theory and all that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
Is it though?
Lots of people seem to have poor opinions of Elon specifically because he does this sort of thing.
That seems to be working as intended.
And we're never going to fix the "money buys away consequences" problem. F.ex. I'm not beholden to chefs' opinions of me, if I can throw 100x average salary to get one to work for me.
Lots of people seem to have poor opinions of Elon specifically because he does this sort of thing.
That seems to be working as intended.
And we're never going to fix the "money buys away consequences" problem. F.ex. I'm not beholden to chefs' opinions of me, if I can throw 100x average salary to get one to work for me.
It is. A bunch of vocal people having loud opinions online doesn't really matter and that's what he demonstrates perfectly: people are mad, but tesla's are selling like hotcakes, spacex is still successful and his money keeps multiplying. Other people see that and feel no need to maintain appearances. This will only get worse as more and more people catch on.
If the metric by which we gauge society's acceptance of someone is their wealth... Elon isn't the first nor will be the last to be a rich asshole.
Making lots of money, and keeping that money, is independent of goodwill. Especially if you're starting rich enough to bypass needing many random people to help you.
I can't agree that Elon showing his ass on Twitter is fundamentally changing social acceptance of doing so.
Making lots of money, and keeping that money, is independent of goodwill. Especially if you're starting rich enough to bypass needing many random people to help you.
I can't agree that Elon showing his ass on Twitter is fundamentally changing social acceptance of doing so.
I would argue he's the first to just buy one of the biggest social platforms so that he can show his ass on it. Probably not the last one, that we can agree on.
This newspaper didn't even have reach outside US, are you seriously comparing it to fucking twitter?
Yes. There's a huge portion of humanity who doesn't read Twitter. Newspapers in their heyday were more influential on public discourse.
If you buy a phone in any place of this planet and then go to its app marketplace, you will likely see twitter as one of the most popular apps on it. I cannot seriously continue this conversation with someone who considers that to be same as some local city newspaper no one seen.
We are seeing that with all the layoffs. Elon normalized treating engineers like garbage. Feels like only way for us to go back to the old mentality is for his methods to end up crashing and burning his enterprises. As it stands the opposite is happening.
That's because the quality of Tesla and SpaceX's products have nothing to do with Elon himself being an obnoxious ass. Steve Jobs was a horrible human, too, yet Apple is a going concern.
If I remember correctly, Steve Jobs did try to maintain non-offensive outward persona. At least from what I remember, the people who he was an ass to were mainly people physically near him: family, coworkers. Scaling that to whole social platform is rather different in scale.
Do these poor opinions really matter? He companies are still the top desired destinations for STEM graduates. Endless supply of people to grind that results in him providing products/services that others can't provide. This results in increased dependance on his companies and him.
I would say his personality absolutely creates headwinds. It reduces sales of vehicles, and public sentiment and visibility drives extra regulatory scrutiny on SpaceX. You have reporters asking the POTUS what he is doing to investigate Musk, and an angry stockholder just got a 50 billion ruling against Musk.
Lets break this down one by one
>It reduces sales of vehicles
Has it really? His cars achieve supposed ~30% profit margins: some of the best in the industry. They have dropped prices beating inflation while competitors cannot. They also got the best software stack of any EV with additional value add such as Sentry mode. Im in the market for a new car and I am baffled as to why every car hasn't copied all the good things from Tesla yet. Its just software!
>and public sentiment and visibility drives extra regulatory scrutiny on SpaceX
so what? Its not like they can drop SpaceX for some other competitor waiting in the wings? If SpaceX says no to the government, the government is the one to lose out.
>You have reporters asking the POTUS what he is doing to investigate Musk
More performance art just like the SEC's investigations. Who wants to be the one to be blamed for destroying the golden goose? Definitely not the SEC and Biden is just performing like he always does to please his base so Musk gets away with stuff that would land others in prison.
>and an angry stockholder just got a 50 billion ruling against Musk
Yeah that was a nice victory but it remains to be seen if he appeals it and/or it has dire consequences for Delaware. So far Delaware has been a small bright dot in an otherwise hopeless situation as this is not the first time they managed to stick it to Musk.
>It reduces sales of vehicles
Has it really? His cars achieve supposed ~30% profit margins: some of the best in the industry. They have dropped prices beating inflation while competitors cannot. They also got the best software stack of any EV with additional value add such as Sentry mode. Im in the market for a new car and I am baffled as to why every car hasn't copied all the good things from Tesla yet. Its just software!
>and public sentiment and visibility drives extra regulatory scrutiny on SpaceX
so what? Its not like they can drop SpaceX for some other competitor waiting in the wings? If SpaceX says no to the government, the government is the one to lose out.
>You have reporters asking the POTUS what he is doing to investigate Musk
More performance art just like the SEC's investigations. Who wants to be the one to be blamed for destroying the golden goose? Definitely not the SEC and Biden is just performing like he always does to please his base so Musk gets away with stuff that would land others in prison.
>and an angry stockholder just got a 50 billion ruling against Musk
Yeah that was a nice victory but it remains to be seen if he appeals it and/or it has dire consequences for Delaware. So far Delaware has been a small bright dot in an otherwise hopeless situation as this is not the first time they managed to stick it to Musk.
My point is that his actions have had material real world consequences to things he cares about. I'm not making the case that they are running him out of business, or anything else.
I know several people who love tesla cars, but wont buy them due to Musk association, so I am going off that. 30% margins on more cars is better than 30% margins on less. Owning a tesla is a scarlet letter for many democratic owners I know.
Similarly, the DOD is not going to stop buying from SpaceX, but is slowing down development that he wants.
Similarly, Musk wants twitter to be successful, and hostility to and from the political left has made that all but impossible.
Early musk benefitted greatly from his social reputation and hype. My perspective is that his public persona since ~2019 has been more of a drag than boost.
Im not sure where you stand. Are you arguing that his public persona is currently a net benefit to his corporate objectives? That they are so small they cant be quantified? That the consequences fall short of what would happen in a morally just world?
I know several people who love tesla cars, but wont buy them due to Musk association, so I am going off that. 30% margins on more cars is better than 30% margins on less. Owning a tesla is a scarlet letter for many democratic owners I know.
Similarly, the DOD is not going to stop buying from SpaceX, but is slowing down development that he wants.
Similarly, Musk wants twitter to be successful, and hostility to and from the political left has made that all but impossible.
Early musk benefitted greatly from his social reputation and hype. My perspective is that his public persona since ~2019 has been more of a drag than boost.
Im not sure where you stand. Are you arguing that his public persona is currently a net benefit to his corporate objectives? That they are so small they cant be quantified? That the consequences fall short of what would happen in a morally just world?
Also, just to add on, having to buy Twitter.
If he hadn't publicly knee-jerked on price and due diligence, he likely could have closed at a much lower price.
Which would have led to him maintaining more ownership of Tesla.
If he hadn't publicly knee-jerked on price and due diligence, he likely could have closed at a much lower price.
Which would have led to him maintaining more ownership of Tesla.
>Im not sure where you stand. Are you arguing that his public persona is currently a net benefit to his corporate objectives? That they are so small they cant be quantified? That the consequences fall short of what would happen in a morally just world?
I am going to quote your post out of order to answer easier(hopefully you don't mind).
The reason I broke it down is to make the point that I feel those real world consequences are minuscule enough to the point where it does not matter. Maybe I should have clarified more in my prior post.
> I know several people who love tesla cars, but wont buy them due to Musk association, so I am going off that.
Its funny as I know multiple college professors with the same mindset. They ended up buying 80-100k BMWs or Mercedes Benz instead of Tesla. The market above 50k represents a small portion of the market. I call this the managerial class price tier. The further you go down the more people become price sensitive and that is what Musk is counting on.
He was never going to own 100% of the car market in the US, there are just too many players with more entering soon(The Chinese). So if some(maybe even the majority of) liberals refuse to buy Teslas, I am not sure if it would matter long term. The demographic makeup of his buyers may shift but the absolute numbers wont (once the numbers settle after the Chinese enter the market). His cars are just so much more competitive vs everyone else and selfish interests will sway enough buyers especially when the majority of buyers are price sensitive above all else. Its like that old push in the 70-80s to "Buy American" as the Japanese flooded the market with much better products at way better prices. In the end GM saw their market share crumble from ~50% to what it is today (~17%)
Ditto for everything else. The DOD working less with him is only a net negative to themselves. Its been 1+years since the announcement of the twitter takeover. If anything would have changed at DOD we would have seen it by now. Instead efforts at SpaceX have only accelerated since he exposed his views on Twitter.
Just as a small example: In 2023 1 year post twitter: World record for launches of any rocket in a single year (96) beating the second best record (Soviet Union at 60 launches) and anything the US govt has done, Falcon heavy improvements surpassed the world record for heavy lift vehicles(Saturn V). A record number of those launches have also been private for the government. I dont see any evidence the DOD is slowing down with them. They are speeding up.
Source of the above claims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8GZ0H0xSFo
>Similarly, Musk wants twitter to be successful, and hostility to and from the political left has made that all but impossible.
There are theories that he wanted to move twitter in this direction as it killed the only major way for people to push back against the powers that be. Just think of how many revolutions started on Twitter and sustained itself due to the real time nature of the platform. Now we are seeing Pro-Palestinian people being banned. I really don't know what his plan is for Twitter and it is still baffling that he continues to execute brilliantly in his other companies yet this remains a dumpster fire.
>Early musk benefitted greatly from his social reputation and hype. My perspective is that his public persona since ~2019 has been more of a drag than boost.
I was part of the Tesla "skeptic" community from 2016-2020. I saw first hand how so many industry experts were shouting from the rooftops at how terrible Musk was as a person. The Left only discovered this side of Musk when it was inconvenient for them. Before that they were happy to ignore the actual people working in industry and enjoy this "real life tony stark". The skeptic community was continually wrong about him. Every giant pitfall that they said was coming did indeed come but he always found a way around it. He has proven (to me) that in this country, the kind of success he has gotten makes his public persona not important in the grand scheme of things. Until something drastically changes, (maybe an extreme anti-corporate government that is just impossible until at least 2028) he is going to keep flying further and further forwards regardless of what people think of him. Hell this year is the year I finally started believing that landing someone on Mars will happen and he will be the one that makes it possible. If that happens no one is going to remember the leftists that criticized him in the history books.
I am going to quote your post out of order to answer easier(hopefully you don't mind).
The reason I broke it down is to make the point that I feel those real world consequences are minuscule enough to the point where it does not matter. Maybe I should have clarified more in my prior post.
> I know several people who love tesla cars, but wont buy them due to Musk association, so I am going off that.
Its funny as I know multiple college professors with the same mindset. They ended up buying 80-100k BMWs or Mercedes Benz instead of Tesla. The market above 50k represents a small portion of the market. I call this the managerial class price tier. The further you go down the more people become price sensitive and that is what Musk is counting on.
He was never going to own 100% of the car market in the US, there are just too many players with more entering soon(The Chinese). So if some(maybe even the majority of) liberals refuse to buy Teslas, I am not sure if it would matter long term. The demographic makeup of his buyers may shift but the absolute numbers wont (once the numbers settle after the Chinese enter the market). His cars are just so much more competitive vs everyone else and selfish interests will sway enough buyers especially when the majority of buyers are price sensitive above all else. Its like that old push in the 70-80s to "Buy American" as the Japanese flooded the market with much better products at way better prices. In the end GM saw their market share crumble from ~50% to what it is today (~17%)
Ditto for everything else. The DOD working less with him is only a net negative to themselves. Its been 1+years since the announcement of the twitter takeover. If anything would have changed at DOD we would have seen it by now. Instead efforts at SpaceX have only accelerated since he exposed his views on Twitter.
Just as a small example: In 2023 1 year post twitter: World record for launches of any rocket in a single year (96) beating the second best record (Soviet Union at 60 launches) and anything the US govt has done, Falcon heavy improvements surpassed the world record for heavy lift vehicles(Saturn V). A record number of those launches have also been private for the government. I dont see any evidence the DOD is slowing down with them. They are speeding up.
Source of the above claims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8GZ0H0xSFo
>Similarly, Musk wants twitter to be successful, and hostility to and from the political left has made that all but impossible.
There are theories that he wanted to move twitter in this direction as it killed the only major way for people to push back against the powers that be. Just think of how many revolutions started on Twitter and sustained itself due to the real time nature of the platform. Now we are seeing Pro-Palestinian people being banned. I really don't know what his plan is for Twitter and it is still baffling that he continues to execute brilliantly in his other companies yet this remains a dumpster fire.
>Early musk benefitted greatly from his social reputation and hype. My perspective is that his public persona since ~2019 has been more of a drag than boost.
I was part of the Tesla "skeptic" community from 2016-2020. I saw first hand how so many industry experts were shouting from the rooftops at how terrible Musk was as a person. The Left only discovered this side of Musk when it was inconvenient for them. Before that they were happy to ignore the actual people working in industry and enjoy this "real life tony stark". The skeptic community was continually wrong about him. Every giant pitfall that they said was coming did indeed come but he always found a way around it. He has proven (to me) that in this country, the kind of success he has gotten makes his public persona not important in the grand scheme of things. Until something drastically changes, (maybe an extreme anti-corporate government that is just impossible until at least 2028) he is going to keep flying further and further forwards regardless of what people think of him. Hell this year is the year I finally started believing that landing someone on Mars will happen and he will be the one that makes it possible. If that happens no one is going to remember the leftists that criticized him in the history books.
>The reason I broke it down is to make the point that I feel those real world consequences are minuscule enough to the point where it does not matter. Maybe I should have clarified more in my prior post.
I don't disagree with 90% of what you said, I just dont understand what you think the criteria for "mattering" is. What would mattering look like or not? If the question is if Elon's flamboyant behavior has impacted his bank account, I think the answer is clearly yes, to the tune of 10s of billions of dollars.
If the question is if the consequences of his behavior are terminal for his companies, then I think chances are miniscule that any of it will matter. If meaningful consequences would be Elon plagued by regrets and misery, I think the answer is obviously not.
I don't disagree with 90% of what you said, I just dont understand what you think the criteria for "mattering" is. What would mattering look like or not? If the question is if Elon's flamboyant behavior has impacted his bank account, I think the answer is clearly yes, to the tune of 10s of billions of dollars.
If the question is if the consequences of his behavior are terminal for his companies, then I think chances are miniscule that any of it will matter. If meaningful consequences would be Elon plagued by regrets and misery, I think the answer is obviously not.
>I don't disagree with 90% of what you said, I just dont understand what you think the criteria for "mattering" is. What would mattering look like or not? If the question is if Elon's flamboyant behavior has impacted his bank account, I think the answer is clearly yes, to the tune of 10s of billions of dollars.
My criteria would be is he hindered in a material way from his goals. Clearly loss of income from liberals does not matter given the resources he and his companies have already.
If he were in Europe, i'd imagine there would have been attempts to break up his companies way before it got to this point. That would force him to choose what he really wants to do.
Maybe attempts to restrict him or people like him from getting to this point where he has so much sway. There is this idea on the left that "billionaires are a failure in policy".
The actions the Swedish union are taking against Tesla are very late but are a positive step towards clawing back some of that power but the actual pain that Musk has to endure has to come from the US.....and it will not be coming any time soon.
My criteria would be is he hindered in a material way from his goals. Clearly loss of income from liberals does not matter given the resources he and his companies have already.
If he were in Europe, i'd imagine there would have been attempts to break up his companies way before it got to this point. That would force him to choose what he really wants to do.
Maybe attempts to restrict him or people like him from getting to this point where he has so much sway. There is this idea on the left that "billionaires are a failure in policy".
The actions the Swedish union are taking against Tesla are very late but are a positive step towards clawing back some of that power but the actual pain that Musk has to endure has to come from the US.....and it will not be coming any time soon.
Thanks for clarifying what criteria you were talking about. I agree that he seems to be able to pursue his goals without major setbacks due to lack of funding. That said, I'm not inside his mind, and dont know what he would like to be doing, but is in some way has to compromise or is prevented from doing so.
[deleted]
This isn't your neighbor, you don't owe politicians any kindness.
Yes, but death threats are a crime, so we owe it to everyone, including ourselves, to not stoop to that level.
Just to add some nuance here, Tan's comments weren't a death threat in the legal sense (or at least don't constitue a crime). It is perfectly legal (if inadvisable) to say something along the lines of "Politician X should die a slow painful death." It only becomes a crime if it is a highly specific threat. E.g. "I am going to shoot Politician X on Tuesday evening after they leave City Hall."
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not wrong.
I mean, he can legally say it for sure, and I wouldn't argue that the law should prevent him from that. But once said, everyone else has every right to condemn him for it.
I mean, he can legally say it for sure, and I wouldn't argue that the law should prevent him from that. But once said, everyone else has every right to condemn him for it.
Local politicians are neighbors
Freedom of speech entails allowing for speech you dislike and find abhorrent. Just be honest and say you are against freedom of speech, and you are in favor of compelled speech. SV types have this weird politeness shtick.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. You can't say whatever assholish thing you want and then claim freedom of speech as a shield when it inevitably pisses people off.
This is not a freedom of speech issue, it's a "CEOs shouldn't be idiots" issue.
This is not a freedom of speech issue, it's a "CEOs shouldn't be idiots" issue.
> Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences
Why do people always say this? Yes, it’s true - and it’s also just flexing your power and ability to crush any speech you deem should have “consequences”.
Free speech advocates are trying to push for a consistent, fairly applied position (which is very noble but imo untenable - I’m not a free speech advocate) and often met with a response that’s essentially “you have no power and I do, so if I dislike what you’re saying I’m going to crush you”.
Why do people always say this? Yes, it’s true - and it’s also just flexing your power and ability to crush any speech you deem should have “consequences”.
Free speech advocates are trying to push for a consistent, fairly applied position (which is very noble but imo untenable - I’m not a free speech advocate) and often met with a response that’s essentially “you have no power and I do, so if I dislike what you’re saying I’m going to crush you”.
>Free speech advocates are trying to push for a consistent, fairly applied position (which is very noble but imo untenable - I’m not a free speech advocate) and often met with a response that’s essentially “you have no power and I do, so if I dislike what you’re saying I’m going to crush you”.
I don't see this in practice. These "free speech advocates" really just want their speech to be mainstream and for everyone else to go away. See Elon and his banning of pro-Palestinian or leftist voices.
I don't see this in practice. These "free speech advocates" really just want their speech to be mainstream and for everyone else to go away. See Elon and his banning of pro-Palestinian or leftist voices.
There's a difference between what type of consequences we're talking about.
Individuals judging you and making personal decisions on how to relate to you?
Or society making decisions to withdraw necessary services?
This is where firmly distinguishing between (individual freedom to associate / decide) and (social responsibility to deliver a necessary service) needs more clarity.
Should I be allowed to picket on public property in front of someone's house I disagree with? Or refuse to provide a service to them because I don't like them? IMHO, probably.
Should the city be allowed to turn off their electricity and water? IMHO, probably not.
Should VISA and Twitter be allowed to ban them? ... oof. That's a toughy.
Individuals judging you and making personal decisions on how to relate to you?
Or society making decisions to withdraw necessary services?
This is where firmly distinguishing between (individual freedom to associate / decide) and (social responsibility to deliver a necessary service) needs more clarity.
Should I be allowed to picket on public property in front of someone's house I disagree with? Or refuse to provide a service to them because I don't like them? IMHO, probably.
Should the city be allowed to turn off their electricity and water? IMHO, probably not.
Should VISA and Twitter be allowed to ban them? ... oof. That's a toughy.
I agree except the last part. Of course they should. It's _their_ freedom of speech. Otherwise you'd compel them to spread speech they don't agree with.
Would you say there's any scale / level-of-necessary-ness at which a private party should acquire must-serve responsibilities?
Such responsibilities at some point seem an inherent consequence of running an economy where (1) companies are allowed to grow as big as they want & (2) "social" functions (i.e. services to all) are sometimes only provided by private parties (there is no government/public alternative).
* Leaving aside the protected-classes argument
Such responsibilities at some point seem an inherent consequence of running an economy where (1) companies are allowed to grow as big as they want & (2) "social" functions (i.e. services to all) are sometimes only provided by private parties (there is no government/public alternative).
* Leaving aside the protected-classes argument
My personal opinion is a bit complicated.
I'm a socialist that thinks that companies should be transitioned into public ownership once they grow big enough.
It fixes the issue you describe in addition to the myriad of other issues associated with ever-increasing privatizion of what should be the commons.
I'm a socialist that thinks that companies should be transitioned into public ownership once they grow big enough.
It fixes the issue you describe in addition to the myriad of other issues associated with ever-increasing privatizion of what should be the commons.
That's certainly an answer.
And I really agree that the crux is "big enough" -- at some point, a phase change happens and regulation for social good needs to change too ('too big to be free'?).
We could pro/con public vs private-but-regulated management, but that's a dead horse and they're both valid options.
And I really agree that the crux is "big enough" -- at some point, a phase change happens and regulation for social good needs to change too ('too big to be free'?).
We could pro/con public vs private-but-regulated management, but that's a dead horse and they're both valid options.
What an odd response. I don't read it that way at all. It just seems to make the very obvious point that being in the legal right doesn't mean anyone is going to want to be associated with you.
Absolutely.
But freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech.
Like people judging what you say.
I'm a free speech absolutionist, but I still think neo Nazis are assholes. I think they should be allowed to say it (absent violence), but anyone who chooses to say it is going to drastically change the way I think of them.
But freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech.
Like people judging what you say.
I'm a free speech absolutionist, but I still think neo Nazis are assholes. I think they should be allowed to say it (absent violence), but anyone who chooses to say it is going to drastically change the way I think of them.
[deleted]
You completely missed the point, in its entirety.
A. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
B. Just because you CAN say anything you want doesn't mean you SHOULD. Part of living in society is acting... civilized.
Suggesting you should treat others with respect is now equated with hating freedom of speech? I guess our country really is in trouble...
A. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
B. Just because you CAN say anything you want doesn't mean you SHOULD. Part of living in society is acting... civilized.
Suggesting you should treat others with respect is now equated with hating freedom of speech? I guess our country really is in trouble...
The city’s board of supervisors is wasting police resources on a joke somebody said on X instead of fixing the problems of their city. Our country is way past the point of really in trouble.
Death threats are not free speech.
The comments here are pretty clearly protected by the 1st amendment. It's not a "true threat" by the standards of US jurisprudence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat
However, just because it's narrowly legal to say something doesn't mean it's a good idea; this kind of thing does tremendous self harm to the speaker's public reputation.
However, just because it's narrowly legal to say something doesn't mean it's a good idea; this kind of thing does tremendous self harm to the speaker's public reputation.
... yes and no?
It's debatable.
Imminent exhortations of others to break the law should be illegal.
Past that, it's a slippery slope to pre-arresting people for thought crime.
As abhorrent as some of the language is, it seems... dicey... if the US had simply banned gangster rap, NWA, fuck-the-police style music. And it's a tenuous line from threat to actual violence.
Which is why "credible" is usually the standard for charging. I.e. did you make a threat and take actions to realize the threat?
It's debatable.
Imminent exhortations of others to break the law should be illegal.
Past that, it's a slippery slope to pre-arresting people for thought crime.
As abhorrent as some of the language is, it seems... dicey... if the US had simply banned gangster rap, NWA, fuck-the-police style music. And it's a tenuous line from threat to actual violence.
Which is why "credible" is usually the standard for charging. I.e. did you make a threat and take actions to realize the threat?
Is that really a death threat? There’s no specific threat of violent action against an individual.
We’ve all said things we aren’t proud of in the heat of the moment, especially under the influence of mind altering substances. And perhaps he was making an (albeit poor taste) joke? We’ve become far too sensitive these days.
We’ve all said things we aren’t proud of in the heat of the moment, especially under the influence of mind altering substances. And perhaps he was making an (albeit poor taste) joke? We’ve become far too sensitive these days.
I think people downplaying it is better than trying to make more out of it than it is, or being part of an online pile-on. It's not great behavior but it's in the realm of "did something dumb", not more.
> donate to campaigns or personally run against them
Neither of these do much, honestly. The government already steals enough of my money, I'm not handing them more. And as a silicon valley nerd I'm not going to attract votes by personally running.
But yeah, wishing death is immature.
Neither of these do much, honestly. The government already steals enough of my money, I'm not handing them more. And as a silicon valley nerd I'm not going to attract votes by personally running.
But yeah, wishing death is immature.
It seems like you’re implying that donating to a campaign somehow goes to the government?
They also think their voter information was "leaked" when they registered to vote, so it doesn't sound like they're very civically informed...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39206679
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39206679
Well at least he’s not promoting genocide in Gaza …oh
[deleted]
infamouscow(3)
shuckles(2)
Lock him up.
> The board’s five Jewish members — Peskin, Ronen, Melgar, Preston and Rafael Mandelman — in October received antisemitic postcards at their homes. Peskin said multiple supervisors have received as many as four more antisemitic letters or postcards since then.
Is this recent incident with Garry connected at all with the antisemetic postcards delivered last year? I haven't been following this and thus don't know what Garry's issue with the supervisors is.
If not: This is scummy writing to connect his admittedly poor-taste comments to something worse.
Is this recent incident with Garry connected at all with the antisemetic postcards delivered last year? I haven't been following this and thus don't know what Garry's issue with the supervisors is.
If not: This is scummy writing to connect his admittedly poor-taste comments to something worse.
Did you stop reading there? It later explains that it has same wording of ”not a threat” used in the letter with Tan’s face. This is how it connects
I did not stop reading. The antisemetic postcards from October are different than the ones the supervisors received with Garry's face and the "this is not a threat" line.
Its not clear to me that the ones with Garry's face are anti-semetic; unless they are, due to the nature of his extreme concern with the supervisory board, and that's what I'm trying to zero-in on. Its also naturally possible that the motivations of Garry and the person who sent the postcard are different, but again: I think its scummy to then prescribe antisemetic intent to Garry by connecting the two without elaborating within-the-article on why Garry is so drunkenly distraught.
I am not justifying or trivializing how Garry behaved. Its not ok to say what he said. But, its possible for both sides of this to be scummy and horrible; and that possibility is what I want to understand better.
Its not clear to me that the ones with Garry's face are anti-semetic; unless they are, due to the nature of his extreme concern with the supervisory board, and that's what I'm trying to zero-in on. Its also naturally possible that the motivations of Garry and the person who sent the postcard are different, but again: I think its scummy to then prescribe antisemetic intent to Garry by connecting the two without elaborating within-the-article on why Garry is so drunkenly distraught.
I am not justifying or trivializing how Garry behaved. Its not ok to say what he said. But, its possible for both sides of this to be scummy and horrible; and that possibility is what I want to understand better.
It's related in the sense that it's part of a recent pattern of harassment against a similar set of local public officials. It's newsworthy as part of a trend.
Analogous is any other news story that points out any other recent trend.
For example, there is a similar NYT article today about increases in train derailments and accidents since last year. The story mentions East Palestine, OH Norfolk Southern derailment. While they're not blaming Norfolk Southern for the broader increase in accidents, it's something that readers have ALSO heard about that was very prominently in the news and helps ground the trend in a noteworthy example.
Analogous is any other news story that points out any other recent trend.
For example, there is a similar NYT article today about increases in train derailments and accidents since last year. The story mentions East Palestine, OH Norfolk Southern derailment. While they're not blaming Norfolk Southern for the broader increase in accidents, it's something that readers have ALSO heard about that was very prominently in the news and helps ground the trend in a noteworthy example.
I think you are too eager to decide that the article is scummy.
For me, those two paragraphs do not say that Tan was antisemetic in any form. It says that
i) some of the same people received an antisemitic hate letters before
ii) those antisemetic letters used the same wording than the ones sent using Tan’s face
The only implication that I see is that they were likely sent by the same person/group. I see this is very clear in the writing as it is. Zero scummyness in it.
And, this connection, in my opinion, very much justifies including the antisemetic letters in the article. It seems a very relevant information.
For me, those two paragraphs do not say that Tan was antisemetic in any form. It says that
i) some of the same people received an antisemitic hate letters before
ii) those antisemetic letters used the same wording than the ones sent using Tan’s face
The only implication that I see is that they were likely sent by the same person/group. I see this is very clear in the writing as it is. Zero scummyness in it.
And, this connection, in my opinion, very much justifies including the antisemetic letters in the article. It seems a very relevant information.
I would argue that Garry's motivation and intent is extremely relevant to this topic of conversation; possibly the most relevant thing. The article omitting this is absolutely scummy, because it fills that omission with connections to antisemetism, and then goes on to speak on how "powerful people need to be held accountable" (absolutely true).
Yes, "for you" and clearly, for me, I did not draw the conclusion that Garry's motivations were antisemetic. That's not the point. Journalists publish articles for an extremely broad audience, and there's a high degree of responsibility and ethics required of the author while publishing; a degree that, to be clear, I do not feel this author met.
Yes, "for you" and clearly, for me, I did not draw the conclusion that Garry's motivations were antisemetic. That's not the point. Journalists publish articles for an extremely broad audience, and there's a high degree of responsibility and ethics required of the author while publishing; a degree that, to be clear, I do not feel this author met.
What does being Jewish have to do with any of this and why was it brought up in the article?
Being Jewish isn’t some sort of shield that gives you special rights over anyone else.
Being Jewish isn’t some sort of shield that gives you special rights over anyone else.
Because if you write something that gives nazis glee and they weaponize it against their Jewish opponents, it should give you pause.
It was brought up because they are receiving explicitly antisemitic content from the same people who loved and weaponized Tan's tweet.
It was brought up because they are receiving explicitly antisemitic content from the same people who loved and weaponized Tan's tweet.
Why is this consideration not given to any other religion?
I would give this consideration to anyone who is receiving borderline threatening, discriminatory language from an upset mob.
A better question to ask yourself is why Jewish people seem to continually end up in this situation: on the receiving end of antisemitic abuse.
Political stuff pisses people off, but people who are pissed at Jew can always just trot out the antisemitic and dehumanizing statements... Such threatening comments have proved credible enough of the time to make the person on the receiving end really second guess about their safety.
A better question to ask yourself is why Jewish people seem to continually end up in this situation: on the receiving end of antisemitic abuse.
Political stuff pisses people off, but people who are pissed at Jew can always just trot out the antisemitic and dehumanizing statements... Such threatening comments have proved credible enough of the time to make the person on the receiving end really second guess about their safety.
No, but we have over 2000 years of cited, verified, and documented hate and horrific actions towards Jews because they are Jews.
This does have to be included as a possible contributing factor to this death threat.
(There's 2 types of bigots: one type will plainly use terrible language up front to let everyone know what they think. The other type will couch their hate in plausible deniable language so you're really not 100% sure.)
This does have to be included as a possible contributing factor to this death threat.
(There's 2 types of bigots: one type will plainly use terrible language up front to let everyone know what they think. The other type will couch their hate in plausible deniable language so you're really not 100% sure.)
It simply says the Jewish members received antisemitic letters. Those things are related.
But is it related to tangs tweet? Prove that it is. Not just well this public figure got hate mail and also this tech ceo sent a mean tweet.
What does being Jewish have to do with receiving antisemitic hate mail shortly after October 7, a brutal antisemitic atrocity committed against Jews? Are you asking that in good faith?
The October 7th terrorist attack was aimed at Israel.
Are you asking your question in good faith?
Are you asking your question in good faith?
For Christ’s sake, the guy spells Garry with two ‘r’s, did y’all expect that he would NOT turn out to be a lunatic???
Yeah man, housing advocates are totally known for being violent extremists, unlike the sups in SF. These people are snakes.
Are these "journalist" being paid by our tax dollars from these corrupt/insane officials?
Gathering money to hire people to write the news in San Francisco is pretty hard.
Mission Local is a non profit org in SF that has done really great work.
Many of their articles focus on corruption in the city government, for example https://missionlocal.org/2022/08/nuru-sentenced/
You can see their funders here: https://missionlocal.org/our-donors/
Mission Local is a non profit org in SF that has done really great work.
Many of their articles focus on corruption in the city government, for example https://missionlocal.org/2022/08/nuru-sentenced/
You can see their funders here: https://missionlocal.org/our-donors/
What am I missing here? "Die slow" is certainly in poor taste, but it is not a death threat nor is it a call for violence. It seems clear to me that it expresses a wish for the target to die slowly (and presumably painfully or uncomfortably) when they do end up dying. It's childish and mean spirited, but it's clearly not a threat. I'm more afraid of the chilling effect that punishing this sort of harmless speech has than I am of allowing it to continue through inaction.
The "die slow" in this case is a reference to an actual death threat made in a song from the 90s.
> it's clearly not a threat
No, it's not a threat, it just _references_ a famous death threat, one that Tan regrets that we didn't get when he initially tweeted it.
> it's clearly not a threat
No, it's not a threat, it just _references_ a famous death threat, one that Tan regrets that we didn't get when he initially tweeted it.
It smells like someone that hates Gary Tan who is sorta savvy want to reverse uno his arse by doing this, can tell by being so obvious by even going lengths to picture the tweet.
If the letter wished them a rapid death, would it still be a threat? What if it merely wished them a death of unspecified speed, itself being the natural and ordinary consequence of being alive?
Edit: to be clear, this comment was not asking a serious question
Edit: to be clear, this comment was not asking a serious question
In law, there is a concept of a "True Threat" [1][2]. Political hyperbole is not a true threat; sending a threatening letter whose only purpose is intimidation may be. So Tan's foolish statements are plainly protected speech, and it is sensible for the recipients of the letters to contact police.
[1] https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/wha...
[2] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/true-threats/
[1] https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/wha...
[2] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/true-threats/
I think context matters. I can say "it would be a shame if something happened to you" and that could be pretty clear threat in some contexts and a genuine expression of concern in others. Same for something like "we all die eventually." In the context of a random letter? Yeah just don't, unless you mean to threaten.
It's mentioned in the article that several lawyers were contacted and they all agreed it plainly did not constitute a threat.
> But tying this potential legislation to the message Tan communicated to his 408,000 Twitter followers would appear to be a serious legal challenge: 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.
Which makes sense. Wishing someone a slow death is akin to saying "go to hell." It is a terrible thing to say and can be said with hate and malice and make you feel very worried but it is not the same thing as "I'm going to kill you."
> But tying this potential legislation to the message Tan communicated to his 408,000 Twitter followers would appear to be a serious legal challenge: 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.
Which makes sense. Wishing someone a slow death is akin to saying "go to hell." It is a terrible thing to say and can be said with hate and malice and make you feel very worried but it is not the same thing as "I'm going to kill you."
Yup. Source: I was suspended from high school for “wishing a rapid death” to one of my teachers.
This post isn't going to get flagged (or at least not as quickly) because it mentions YC itself, and YC is kid-gloves about moderating posts about YC.
But this is a deeply stupid story with a lede that basically says "I'm unfamiliar with even the most most famous 90s hip-hop". Tan, like many, many, many Internet commenters before him, was quoting Tupac's Hit 'Em Up, which, unless you think Tupac was literally calling out hits on Chino XL, was not intended to be a true threat at the time, and certainly couldn't reasonably be taken as one today.
People come up with all sorts of cringey rationalizations for how this is anything more than someone on Twitter faceplanting a dad joke (sorry, but 2Pac is now dad music, I don't make the rules). That's because the rationalizations are more narratively interesting, which is a pretentious way of saying "fun", and fun beats reason every single time.
EFfective local politics? Definitely not. But then, if you oppose what Tan is about in SF, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
This is an off-topic dupe story and by rights it shouldn't be on the front page, but, whatever.
But this is a deeply stupid story with a lede that basically says "I'm unfamiliar with even the most most famous 90s hip-hop". Tan, like many, many, many Internet commenters before him, was quoting Tupac's Hit 'Em Up, which, unless you think Tupac was literally calling out hits on Chino XL, was not intended to be a true threat at the time, and certainly couldn't reasonably be taken as one today.
People come up with all sorts of cringey rationalizations for how this is anything more than someone on Twitter faceplanting a dad joke (sorry, but 2Pac is now dad music, I don't make the rules). That's because the rationalizations are more narratively interesting, which is a pretentious way of saying "fun", and fun beats reason every single time.
EFfective local politics? Definitely not. But then, if you oppose what Tan is about in SF, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
This is an off-topic dupe story and by rights it shouldn't be on the front page, but, whatever.
I dunno, most dad jokes don't read as death threats to the majority of the population. Suggesting it's everyone else's fault for not being familiar with "the most famous 90s hip-hop" isn't very convincing.
Listen to Ken White's podcast or read his blog to learn that threats are evaluated in the context they're delivered in. "Die slowly" is a meme. In fact: this has been a running joke since at least nineteen ninety-nine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XASNM1XEQPs
Like I said, this "online rant, threat of harm" stuff (to paraphrase the story) is pretty supremely cringey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XASNM1XEQPs
Like I said, this "online rant, threat of harm" stuff (to paraphrase the story) is pretty supremely cringey.
Meme is one thing, a letter wishing you and your families death sent to your home address seems to cross the line. "Haha, it's all just a joke."
The person receiving that is probably concerned they've been doxxed on 4chan by now.
That sort of stuff ruins lives, people do go into hiding.
An online rant really is one thing, but when it starts to be connected to crazies sending letters to your home address - that gets scary fast.
The person receiving that is probably concerned they've been doxxed on 4chan by now.
That sort of stuff ruins lives, people do go into hiding.
An online rant really is one thing, but when it starts to be connected to crazies sending letters to your home address - that gets scary fast.
Nobody went into hiding. This is what I mean by "cringey rationalization".
I was in grade school in 1999. A large portion of the population is as young or younger than me and has had no exposure to 90’s hip hop. Gary should keep that in mind next time he tweets.
And as for “context,” is there a medium that provides less context than a tweet?
And as for “context,” is there a medium that provides less context than a tweet?
A tech CEO employing hip-hop in this manner is also supremely cringey, if you think about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKuoXw2h3Xc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKuoXw2h3Xc
It obviously is! This is not a zero-cringe game.
(For the record, I'm not American but frequent HN often; I have never heard of this song and while the name "Tupac" rings a distant bell, I didn't know if it was a person or a place.)
Hiphop fan here, Tupac has maybe dozens of diss or “threat” tracks in his discography. Maybe CEO shouldn’t be quoting Tupac lyrics in the first place since I am pretty sure hit em up has probably influenced a lot of murders, not just Biggie.
And yet somehow Chino XL still draws breath, and sickle cell is what took out Prodigy.
I’m talking about gang members, not famous rappers.
Familiarize yourself with the lyric he quoted.
As a resident dad joke expert: Can you explain what exactly is a 'dad joke' about quoting a line about wishing someone to die slowly? Where's the joke or the funny? Where's the cringe pun?
Paragraph three which mentions the 2Pac reference was pretty good.
I enjoyed learning about Tan's political history in relation to the supervisors.
The quote from the Berkeley School of Law dean added a good legal perspective.
I enjoyed learning about Tan's political history in relation to the supervisors.
The quote from the Berkeley School of Law dean added a good legal perspective.
I'm pretty immersed in American media and pop culture and history. Originally I did not make the connection that Tan was tweeting Tupac lyrics.
I'm just not a huge rap listener, though I can tell you all about Tupac's family's amazing history.
I'm just not a huge rap listener, though I can tell you all about Tupac's family's amazing history.
>> unless you think Tupac was literally calling out hits on Chino XL, was not intended to be a true threat at the time, and certainly couldn't reasonably be taken as one today.
Huh?
There were whole articles written about the song and the context of the time in which it was written. Tupac lived a notoriously violent life and saw himself as a legit street gangster despite the actual reality of the opposite.
From 2017:
That opening line—that egregious, confrontational, hate-filled opening line—was one of the most unforgettable utterances ever committed to wax by the late Tupac Shakur. It’s been 20 years since the release of 2Pac’s scathingly brutal diss track “Hit ’Em Up,” a song that came to embody the venom behind the Death Row/Bad Boy beef of the mid-’90s and an easy reference for the antagonistic figure many saw 2Pac as in his final months on this earth.
There was a palpable sense of dread hanging over hip-hop in mid-’96.
The final paragraph of the article sums it up:
In the wake of Shakur’s murder, “Hit ’Em Up” would become a chilling epitaph for a feud that seemed to spiral out of control—even more so after the Notorious B.I.G. met a similar fate in March 1997. Taken on its own merit, it’s one of the greatest diss records in hip-hop history; but attached to the moment, it was a lot more than that. Something more volatile. Something more dangerous.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tupacs-hit-em-up-the-most-sava...
Huh?
There were whole articles written about the song and the context of the time in which it was written. Tupac lived a notoriously violent life and saw himself as a legit street gangster despite the actual reality of the opposite.
From 2017:
That opening line—that egregious, confrontational, hate-filled opening line—was one of the most unforgettable utterances ever committed to wax by the late Tupac Shakur. It’s been 20 years since the release of 2Pac’s scathingly brutal diss track “Hit ’Em Up,” a song that came to embody the venom behind the Death Row/Bad Boy beef of the mid-’90s and an easy reference for the antagonistic figure many saw 2Pac as in his final months on this earth.
There was a palpable sense of dread hanging over hip-hop in mid-’96.
The final paragraph of the article sums it up:
In the wake of Shakur’s murder, “Hit ’Em Up” would become a chilling epitaph for a feud that seemed to spiral out of control—even more so after the Notorious B.I.G. met a similar fate in March 1997. Taken on its own merit, it’s one of the greatest diss records in hip-hop history; but attached to the moment, it was a lot more than that. Something more volatile. Something more dangerous.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tupacs-hit-em-up-the-most-sava...
No, to all of this. No, this is an unserious argument about an unserious event. If he'd quoted Fairport Convention singing about murdering dudes with beaten swords, I insist that we would be having an isomorphic argument right now. About, like, drive-by swordings in the middle ages, and the implied threats thereof. No, I shan't have it.
sorry what?
you think given the context between Biggie and Tupac, where both artists were later violently murdered, Hit'em up, which was one of the rap beef songs of all time, did not include any genuine threats of violence?
I'm not saying that Garry Tan was threatening to, as in the original song, shoot up the supes with AKs, or shoot them in the back with the Mac, or cut their young ass up, leave them in pieces, or snatch their ugly ass off the streets, or get their caps peeled, but I think it would be very strange to rationalize that particular Tupac song as one that was not threatening murder
you think given the context between Biggie and Tupac, where both artists were later violently murdered, Hit'em up, which was one of the rap beef songs of all time, did not include any genuine threats of violence?
I'm not saying that Garry Tan was threatening to, as in the original song, shoot up the supes with AKs, or shoot them in the back with the Mac, or cut their young ass up, leave them in pieces, or snatch their ugly ass off the streets, or get their caps peeled, but I think it would be very strange to rationalize that particular Tupac song as one that was not threatening murder
That is correct.
[deleted]
"I didn't really mean it, I was quoting someone from several decades ago that everyone should have known about as long as they were alive then, interested in the person originally quoted and happened to also know about the quote!"
It feels so obvious to me that the CEO of such a high-profile org should at the very least quickly check public-facing social media posts against someone sensible, if not laundering them all through the experts at their org. But somehow they keep making these mistakes over and over again.