I'm a little bit aghast at all the comments saying this is normal or no big deal. Maybe it is normal (or at least common), but it shouldn't be. If you believe it's no big deal, I can't agree. I can see this kind of behaviour from adolescents, but adults should understand that words are meaningful and have consequences, and that even if you disagree with someone, they're still a human being who deserves some modicum of respect, or at least decency. Wishing a slow death on someone, even rhetorically, shows neither, to put it mildly.
Yeah, apparently it was a pop reference, and that makes it okay?
The problem with references is that not everybody gets the reference, and without that (and possibly even with) this is a death threat. And with today's highly polarized and volatile political situation, you need to be really careful with that.
I've come to expect this sort of behaviour from random internet trolls, but a CEO really should know better. I think this counts as a disqualifying lapse of judgement.
It's not uncommon to add a minimal amount of plausible deniability to a toxic comment/threat (by calling it a joke or reference, following it up with "in Minecraft" etc), but imho that's intentional abuse of other people's good will and should be treated as such.
Either way knowing how to communicate responsibly is part of a CEO's job, that's one of the reasons they get paid so much.
Yeah there's too much insensitivity being brushed off as "it's a reference", "it's a joke", "it's a meme", or with things like "you can't say anything anymore without anyone getting offended". That's not accepting responsibility for what you said. As is "I / he was drunk"; again, shifting blame. It's an explanation, not an excuse, and if you "become" an unpleasant person when drunk, you're an unpleasant person full stop. Stop drinking then.
I called someone a nerd once, but it turned out they didn't feel it had been "reclaimed" like a lot of people do. I apologized, and we had a nice chat about the paths language takes. It was nice. More situations like this should go like that, but it seems like doubling down, making excuses, or going on the attack is too easy.
If his rapper persona had tweeted the lyrics to a diss track but clarified the theatrical kayfabe by breaking the fourth wall, that arguably could be less of a threat but still demonstrate questionable judgment, so I agree with you there.
But violent rhetoric certainly increases the likelihood that others will escalate violence against the target, and so the risk (threat) of death and harm very much does increase as seen in many unfortunate cases.
That is how asymmetric information warfare has a chilling effect on democracy and infringes others’ fundamental liberties (life, pursuit of happiness), and is different from “free speech”.
It doesn’t require sophisticated thinking to discern the difference, but X is where discourse goes to die.
Where the Supreme Court clarified that even more disgusting speech tinged with violence-encouraging rhetoric was, in fact, legally free speech. (Please, let's not call rhetoric itself violence.)
Citizens United says that something that’s undeniably speech—a movie about a politician—can’t be suppressed merely because the speakers pay for it through the vehicle of a corporation. What do you think is incorrect about that?
If Citizens United has gone the other way, the Trump administration would have been able, for example, to order Facebook to suppress posts about COVID death tolls near the election.
"Legally allowed" doesn't mean it's protected from consequences.
Call someone a dick and you're protected under free speech, but you can still get punched in the face. And a judge won't be very amenable to a possible consequent assault case if the victim was goaded.
The grandparent post is centered around the idea that it wasn't free speech, which is what I was responding to, not the idea that there can't be social consequences.
> And a judge won't be very amenable to a possible consequent assault case if the victim was goaded.
This is incorrect and fairly disturbing. The idea of "fighting words" (which are not protected speech) is extremely circumscribed; it applies basically only to the case of someone standing in front of you and saying something with the intent to provoke an "immediate instinctive reaction." (Ginsburg's words.) It absolutely does not justify punching someone you see in the street for a Tweet they made yesterday and you will go to jail for this. You will not get sympathy from a judge. Unfortunately, this is one of the very sorts of ideas that disintegrates free societies - "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is true, but it doesn't justify violence legally or morally, and saying so undermines free and fair societies.
Apparently there is plenty of room for debate on this subject, and Brandenburg v Ohio — involving a KKK leader whose conviction under a state law for making threatening and racist remarks was overturned by a divided court — is still being hashed out by constitutional experts to this day.
It doesn’t invalidate the central idea that free speech is different from inflammatory speech “condoning” violence (wink wink) when it is amplified by technology to have an asymmetrical effect on the target of that speech.
And in any case, we are discussing the use of telecommunications systems for harassment and not someone shouting in a park behind a police barricade. I don’t do either of these things, so I’m admittedly not well-informed about the constitutional and case law in the US that might apply.
If I were a C-level executive I would probably aspire to higher level of online citizenry and behavior, perhaps, than a KKK leader, and hire someone else to do the tweeting.
> Apparently there is plenty of room for debate on this subject, and Brandenburg v Ohio — involving a KKK leader whose conviction under a state law for making threatening and racist remarks was overturned by a divided court — is still being hashed out by constitutional experts to this day.
There's always room for debate on anything, but nobody but a tiny minority of legal experts are "hashing out" the case. It's been settled, quiet law for decades. It's also important to note that it came out of a much more restless time in American history, and a time when violence was very regularly politically or racially motivated violence driven by speech and the spread of ideas.
> And in any case, we are discussing the use of telecommunications systems for harassment and not someone shouting in a park behind a police barricade. I don’t do either of these things, so I’m admittedly not well-informed about the constitutional and case law in the US that might apply.
Harassment is another thing that has a specific legal definition. It's become common over time to use stronger words than are justified colloquially because it makes a more persuasive argument. For example, we might describe an accidental death as a "murder". But I don't think it's very productive in coming to understandings or deciding how we should set norms and make laws.
> It doesn’t invalidate the central idea that free speech is different from inflammatory speech “condoning” violence (wink wink) when it is amplified by technology to have an asymmetrical effect on the target of that speech.
In what sense is it asymmetrical? It's been my observation that many people making arguments like this seem to believe that 21st century social media technology has changed everything. Rather, historically speaking - at least in the modern era - it's more akin to returning to the norm, rather than the closely gatekept broadcast media era. This sort of thing is obviously gross, but it is not beyond the historical pale. It has seemed to me that many people would prefer to return to the brief period we did have asymmetry, where the wrong people saying ugly things were kept out of what was regarded as the place of public discourse, which discourse could then target people not blessed with access and leave them no way to publicly respond or defend themselves.
But in this case we're talking about a tweet made about a politicians and public figures. (It's worth mentioning that in the US, anything related to political speech is given even more leeway.) Twitter is available to both their proponents and their detractors. Any politician has themselves an enormous platform. Nothing about this case is asymmetrical, unless the argument is that the politician(s) has acquired more vitriolic haters than defenders. Well, that's the nature of social life. I would hope that the police would seriously investigate any actual threats and keep a close eye on the neighborhood they live in.
As for inflammatory - well, yes, inflammatory speech has been held to be protected over and over and over again. I also don't think it's fruitful to go down the road of "this speech is secretly condoning violence" (which is also not illegal or the "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences folks advocating for the enemy du jour to be assaulted in the streets would be in trouble.) Even if it is secretly condoning violence, it's very obvious that criminalizing "coded" speech is a wide open road to serious abuses of rights.
> If I were a C-level executive I would probably aspire to higher level of online citizenry and behavior, perhaps, than a KKK leader, and hire someone else to do the tweeting.
No argument there. I do not know Gary Tan or anything about him other than what was in this reporting but it's obvious the tweet is trashy and unprofessional and the world would be better off without it. Nothing in my posts should be construed as an endorsement or agreement with it or Gary Tan.
I think we can both agree that online behavior can be harmful even when it is legally protected, and that free speech is a topic about which some people are very passionate.
Whether it fits any legal definition of a death threat or not is... kind of moot, you can be a dick to someone else without violating the law. Society isn't built on laws, but on decency and respect, and wishing anything negative on someone else isn't it. A few days ago the CoC of an online community was posted, and "slow death" threats wouldn't pass their "be kind" rules either (https://www.improbableisland.com/coc.php, via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39135779).
There's a big discussion going on on whether this was good or bad, or whatever, but the point remains that he represents a company, he made a public statement that puts himself in a bad light, which in turn makes the customers of said customer lose trust and respect, which in turn causes the company harm. A lot of harm. And you can't have a CEO that causes the company harm through his public behaviour.
He's paraphrased 2pac is his alcohol fuelled moment
"Fuck Mobb Deep, fuck Biggie
Fuck Bad Boy as a staff, record label and as a motherfuckin' crew
And if you want to be down with Bad Bo, then fuck you too
Chino XL, fuck you too
All you motherfuckers, fuck you too (take money, take money)
All of y'all motherfuckers, fuck you, die slow, motherfucker"
It's immature and poor judgement but he's apologised for it so I don't think it's fair to drag him down.
> but he's apologised for it so I don't think it's fair to drag him down.
So, the way this works is, he can say whatever he likes, but people shouldn't say mean things about him? How does this work? I'm genuinely curious; this, on the face of it, makes no sense to me at all. Is it because he's rich? I don't get it.
> I'm genuinely curious; this, on the face of it, makes no sense to me at all. Is it because he's rich? I don't get it.
For me, it's because I can remember many times when I've done something wrong or stupid and others have forgiven me. Nothing as public as this, but that's frankly more due to lack of an audience than a difference in character.
I can see a part of myself reflected back, the same part that's been a little too honest during a long happy hour, and I can empathize with how he probably feels.
I don't see myself as different at the human level, and I'd rather live in a world where we both deserve forgiveness than neither of us.
He seems genuinely remorseful. He knows he fucked up. He knows he fucked up bad. I don't see the point in beating a dead horse.
He'll probably lose his job. That's fair enough to me, you reap what you sow. Can't have that public or a role with outbursts like that. I don't see a reason to hang this around his neck for forever, though.
Yes, when people apologize for things we generally move on since the person acknowledge their error.
Let’s be honest, it’s blowing up because the California political machine is threatened by this guy, and tearing him down for a small transgression means they’ll hold onto the reins of power even longer.
Some people read it as a death threat but they mostly seem to be people who dislike him or his politics. To me that seems like it's being exploited for political reasons. Which Garry obviously made easy to do. Not the same thing as an actual death threat though.
Are you implying that it's not a threat of any kind? Regardless of how it's enacted? I would certainly rather be threatened with a nice day.
Especially in this climate, where the tip of a hat causes anonymous people to pile on and send threats via mail, it wouldn't be as simple as brushing it off.
The worst part isn't usually the initial threat, it's the piling on afterwards that can last for months and years afterwards.
The higher up you are, and the more you represent an organisation, the less immature behavior or poor judgement you cannafford orbare entitled to. USN nuclear sub commanders get replaced for DUIs, because poor judgement is not acceptable. Creating public outrage with drunk rantabon social media falling back on an employer is nothing a normal employee woild get waway woth, let alone a CEO.
But in a world where everyone seems to think they are Elon Musk, and not Steve Jobs anymore, it is no surprise this behavior is shickingly common.
No, CEO and other public figures from a company should be held to even higher standards than the rank and file.
Which is enough to make him unfit for the position at YC and justifies his resignation.
Walmart cashiers are being fired everyday for things like immaturity and poor judgment, why should YC CEO be held under lower behavior standards than blue collar workers?!
Note: This is a general comment and not intended forgive or incriminate anyone.
Perhaps. The thing is, if we only look for leaders who have never erred (read: never fallen and gotten up) we end up with (for example) our "representatives" in Washington DC. That is, generally spineless, middle of the road, etc. The word beige comes to mind. That is, we end up with "leaders" without the toolbox of experiences necessary for effective leadership.
Humans? Humans *by definition* make mistakes. Sure some are worse than others. Some demand some mistakes be paid for (in a number of socially acceptable ways). That said, one (rant) is not a pattern.
The question is: What are our collective priorities? Human leaders capable of leading humans? Or perfection which effectively translates to no edges, risk adverse, and ultimately flacid and unfollowable?
>What are our collective priorities? Human leaders capable of leading humans? Or perfection which effectively translates to no edges, risk adverse, and ultimately flacid and unfollowable?
Sure, I'd take humans leading humans. Probably is we're in an era of humans trying to exploit other humans to appeal to semi-human stock market dynamics (likely funded by rich humans who have much better financial security).
I want empathy, and representation of the people's needs. Not some infeasible goal to keep growing profits even amidst a potential recession. I don't know Tan that well, but nothing in the conversation I've read over the past few days has even mentioned him being like that.
I don't necessarily have any vested interests here, but I definitely don't have sympathy.
Collective is to say this isn't Left or Right issue. We elected the electable. That is, those who campaign best. That doesn't mean they'll be great representatives. That doesn't mean they're capable of leading. If fact, we've normalized a bastardized definition of leader and apply that label without shame.
We see this time and again. And yet every election cycle we go back for - and/or are only given - more of the same.
oh yeah, 100%. I don't exactly think it's optimal for my country's 82 YO incumbent president to continue to run for 4 more years either. Frustrating realities of a 2 party system, you're just picking the lesser bad instead of a proper represenative of your values.
> Walmart cashiers are being fired everyday for things like immaturity and poor judgment, why should YC CEO be held under lower behavior standards than blue collar workers?!
Parent:
>> If being immature and showing poor judgement means you can run a VC fund 100% of VC funds would be firing their CEOs.
Yes it's politics and working with computers and man-children all day is poor training. Stick to your lane tech billionaires you couldn't win an election if you were the last person alive.
To put it in a bit more context: this was out-of-hours, and those Walmart cashiers shouldn't be sacked for immaturity and poor judgement in their personal lives if their work is life is up to scratch.
I know it is more complicated than that when your actions have wider reach, especially for someone as high up as a CEO, but for all of us these days with ubiquitous social media potentially giving us all more reach, as what you do in your off-time can negatively impact the company, and your position can lead to your stupid moments having far more impact on people generally.
Even a grade A class 1 drunken cockup, in personal time, shouldn't result in a firing unless it is part of a larger or repeating pattern.
IMO: he has taken ownership of his actions, accepted that they were stupid, apologies for causing office (and not in the “sorry you found it offensive” non-apology sort of way), etc, so : ridicule him by all means, but sacking seems OTT at this point. And if he does it, or something else similarly foolish, again, then we break out the pitchforks.
There's no out-of-hours for CEO. He was using is official Twitter account to make a public statement, that's a work-related mistake. (It's not like he used some anonymous account to troll on some subreddit)
> Walmart cashiers shouldn't be sacked for immaturity and poor judgement in their personal lives if their work is life is up to scratch.
I don't know if they should, but they definitely are. Musk's obsession with his employees drug use out of work is an example (and also an example of double standards between CEOs and blue collar workers).
If his contract foes specifically say that, then I doubt it is legally enforceable anyway.
> He was using is official Twitter account to make a public statement, that's a work-related mistake.
If he used an official work account, then yes that paints a different picture and is a more clear-cut case of abusing resources and directly bringing the company into disrepute. But @GarryTan doesn't sound like a company account to me (I'm assuming the 陈嘉兴 in the account display name “Garry Tan 陈嘉兴” is also personal name information, not company affiliation, please correct me if I'm wrong).
> I don't know if they should, but they definitely are.
Calling for the bad side of a double-standard to apply to all is not the way I'd choose to fix the situation.
--
Of course the people threatened by the ill-advised quotes, which might indicate overly string views, are well within their rights to pursue legal action against as they see fit, but at this point I'd say it isn't a sacking matter for the company.
He’s right. Source: was executive, CEO adjacent, and id still have been let go for such behaviour. At that level, you’re a very different representation of the org and you’re held to a higher standard in such cases where your actions regardless of when or where they took place reflect upon the org.
>Unless his contract specifically says that, bull.
I imagined he's not paid hourly. I have to deal with off work bad behavior so I don't see how holding someone accountable on an official social media account is too far.
>But @GarryTan doesn't sound like a company account to me (I'm assuming the 陈嘉兴 in the account display name “Garry Tan 陈嘉兴” is also personal name information, not company affiliation, please correct me if I'm wrong).
that is indeed where things get muddy and where we gotta look closer.
In this case, this isn't just some small personal account for maintaining contacts. his Bio has a banner that reads
```President and CEO
Y Combinator (insert social contacts on the right)```
and his bio reads
```President & CEO @ycombinator
—Founder @Initialized
—PM/designer/engineer who helps founders—YouTuber—San Franciscan—technology brother—Accelerate human abundance```
Other workers who mix these in their bio would at least say "Opinions are my own", which is a dubious defense for someone like a CEO, but one that was not taken anyway.
>Calling for the bad side of a double-standard to apply to all is not the way I'd choose to fix the situation.
well we've tried the good side for decades, and headway isn't made. You gotta change your approach if you want empathy.
I agree that this guy is a tosser. I’m always first in line to give a fatcat tech bro what for. But you’re completely barking up the wrong tree with this tribalist argument. You’re holding him to a standard that you at least in part don’t believe in, but are simply saying “an eye for an eye!” when he wasn’t even the one responsible for taking the first eye. Chill.
>You’re holding him to a standard that you at least in part don’t believe in
In part. but CEOs have a lot more money and PR on the line than some WalMart worker who may not even be recognized by regular shoppers at that store.
And yes, some of it is spite. We're in a period of time where the economy is crashing and such C level execs will drop thousands of jobs at the drop of a hat, for people who did nothing wrong and probably made the company millions, billions. I don't really sympathize when suddenly they screw up on their own volition and may be given the sack themselves.
They may think that it's reasonable to hold tech CEOs to higher standards in this respect than Walmart cashiers. So I don't think there's necessarily any inconsistency here.
That he was drunk makes it very likely that he was expressing what he really thinks. It's not a matter of "dragging him down" as much as "when someone shows you who they are, believe them."
Apologizing is great, but it can't make people unlearn something they learned about the person.
The main consequence to him so far has been a lot of people thinking less of him. It was also consequential for the subjects of the tweet, and to a much lesser extent, to all of us who've been exposed to it.
Okay sounds like he faced those exact consequences and a bunch of people are acting like victims because they chose to take him too literally. I don't think Gary really cares what you or some others think. He's developed a thick skin for this sort of stuff maybe others should too.
I think more of him though. Sort of like when a polite old woman tells someone to fuck off and they're literally shook. A lot of people could do with hardening up a bit.
> A lot of people could do with hardening up a bit.
How often have I heard that from bullies who shit themselves, whine
and go running to mommy as soon as they get a little of what they
give?
You actually mean "shut up, roll over and passively accept abuse."
Anyone who hardened-up, as in speaking their honest feeling and the
truth about this sort of bully would be banned from here in 5 seconds!
We don't have the option to "harden up", because we value civility and
intellectual curiosity, and all know it would make this forum a much
worse place.
Pursuing intellectual curiosity involves tolerating ideas or language or phrasing you don't like. The world is messy. Gary hasn't bullied or abused anyone. That is where the line is.
The real answer is here is Gary could have phrased his words better and he would have been more effective in communicating his message. That's it.
There's a real leap in the phrasing of "die slow" as "I do not approve of your policies and hope that others are elected to improve the city".
Simply passing that off as "bad wording" is reductive and gives leeway to others who test the waters with extremism and turtle back into the shell of "I didn't mean it that way" when they get pushback.
It's not that Garry literally means he wants them to die, it's that it's irresponsible for a leader to infer that idea and to normalize (unintentionally, as I would give him the benefit of the doubt here) the same type of actions as actual extremists.
Let's say he hasn't. So what's at issue? Because this bothers me if I
am to continue to participate in HN.
Pursuing intellectual curiosity involves tolerance, yes, and
forgiveness. And seeing a little of the other in yourself, and you in
them.
You know, I wouldn't presume to say anything about a person I don't
know, or to psychologise too much on an individual. There's a parallel
universe where I'd meet Mr Tan and enjoy some beers, we'd talk about
tech, and maybe after a few we'd get all 'blokey' start comparing our
lists of people who should die horribly. That's all human enough. And
I come from a background that makes me not ashamed to be in touch with
my own disdain, violence, unacceptable sides and masculine toxicity.
We all say cringe things we wish we could take back from time to
time. Shame is a good teacher if we don't leave that unexamined etc.
I'm not "outraged" (the only emotion 21st century people feel) at Tan
for slipping up and going a bit gangsta, channelling his inner 2Pac or
whatever. Who doesn't? I've no doubt some of those Californian
politicians are infuriating and cut from the same cloth as the poor
shower we have over here.
I'm disappointed because of how that reflects on me, on other hackers
and the real tech community - you know, us grunts who actually think
up and build all the stuff.
He's not quite young enough to be my son. But if he were, I'd have to
say "Gary, why are you hanging out with these losers? People who
claim to represent utopian technological ideas, but are massively
stunted as human beings? Tech billionaire trash who are actually a lot
less smart and well educated than they think. They're insecure,
inauthentic, cloistered, frightened of dying, doing far more drugs
than is good for anyone, and hell-bent on imposing technological
terror upon the world we haven't seen since the Third Reich.
Please find some nicer friends."
And what I'd hope to hear is like; "Yes I'm sorry to let the community
down. I feel a lot of anger and frustration at the world. I realise
my worldview is parochial. I see that I'm in a group whose ideas are
not universal, whatever our "progressive" good intentions. Maybe I
can temper myself in a way that's more congruent with the money, power
and consequent responsibility to others' I carry."
My general rule is sort of a variant of Godwin’s Law:
“The first person to tell their opponent ‘you shouldn’t be so sensitive’ forfeits the debate.”
There are of course exceptions. But obnoxious people think that every time they say something offensive or awful, the onus is on others to make allowances.
That rule is great in a monoculture but fails when good-faith participants are coming from widely differing perspectives and values. If it’s not a good faith discussion, nothing helps.
But I’m not actually trying to engineer a debate ruleset, I’m mostly pointing out how people try to get away with being assholes.
A lot of people could do with learning more empathy. People shouldn’t have to be hard. People, especially over-privileged people like this, should learn how to behave like decent humans.
I am not a lawyer, but if some deranged individual who follows him takes his comment and face value and murders someone, he will face many consequences.
Firstly, he would be involved on murder. That's not a great experience to have, for most people.
He would at least be on trial. I don't exactly know how incitement to murder is treated in the US.
It could even be considered domestic terrorism (an assassination made to intimidate a group based on an ideological agenda/government policy). Then, I don't know what would happen, exactly. The FBI would probably get involved?
> Wishing death on political figures is a cherished American tradition
It's a strange sort of "cherished American tradition" that is so subtle that I, as a native American more than a half-century old, have never even heard of it being a tradition before.
> Americans have cherished a very liberal/free definition of free speech rights.
Absolutely. That wasn't what I was questioning. What I'm questioning is the proposition that wishing death on people is a "cherished American tradition". I don't think it is.
The American tradition is to be very permissive about how far speech can go before it becomes illegal. That's a very different thing.
This would not change ex post facto because of someone else's actions.
In the US, what he did said is disgusting but legally protected free speech. It's conceivable that he could be opened up to a civil lawsuit, but that's about it.
The US has a long history of "stochastic terrorism", which seems to be at a relative low compared to the violence of the early 1900s, the 1960s, and several other periods etc. I have faith in its institutional ability to handle and restrain actual violence.
I am much more concerned about the normalization of the idea that we should restrict free speech. I suppose this isn't too shocking - the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed after what we would now call many instances of "stochastic terrorism" in the newspapers - but I'd hoped we'd learned our lesson and permanently repudiated these ideas.
Because things were worse before doesn't mean we need to stop trying to be better in the future.
After January 6th, I don't share your assessment of the present or recent past. Free speech seems excessively protected today, even for veiled threats; moreso if one is rich or popular.
Unfortunately, discussing this too much more runs the risk of becoming too politicized for HN. I'll point out only that as deadly riots go, January 6 ranks at the near the bottom of American riots (lots tied with one fatality.) As protests or even attacks on or in government buildings go, it is not particularly notable. If that's what we're worried about, I'm not worried. It will be forgotten like the 50s Puerto Rican attack in the Capitol and it will have had less effect. If there'd been a stronger police response/presence as there was during the BLM White House protests or some earlier Capitol protests, you'd not even be hearing about it today. But for that accident (or conspiracy if you're so inclined, or deliberate underestimation of the threat of Trump supporters, or whatever) it would have been forgotten on January 7th.
Two fold: Legal consequences if some of the people threatened by him want to sue or have him indicted about it. And whatever YC as his employer sees fit for the resulted harm on the reputation of the company.
So, in the end, it can be everything from nothing to a criminal charge and conviction with loosing his job somewhere in the middle.
to clarify, in the US, "I will kill you" may or may not be considered a threat. It depends on whether or not it's actionable. If it's a tweet, it's probably not going to be considered actionable.
People talk shit all the time, a lot of people in this post need to calm down and stop being so quick to be offended.
Should have said it? Probably not. Does that make him a danger to anyone? Not by itself it doesn't.
If he said "I will kill you" it'd be a pretty open threat. I'm sure it'd still be argued a lot in courts on if it's genuine but it'd be an actual argument.
Saying "die motherfucker" makes it less obvious. Since the other extreme of "this person should die" is crude, but not a threat (lest Twitter would be shut down overnight). So it'd come down to the judge and how they interpret the phrase to get any headway
>People talk shit all the time
And that isn't right as a concept. "Shit talking" is almost never necessary in modern discourse. But the US has strong libel laws so "talking shit" won't lead to much legal consequence.
It isn't polite speech that needs to be protected and the tests for whether something is an actual threat or not is well understood, there's no excuse for you not knowing them unless you don't live in the US.
Okay, and a lawyer can easily argue 4/5 of those points if he did indeed "I'll kill you". He's a person in power with the means to find the subjects listed.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm just saying that I can see it being argued based on the phrasing and how far the subjects wanted to escalate this. Whether or not it would be effective or viable is another question.
sure, a lawyer can argue anything they want, the issue is that our court system has precedent going back 100+ years.
One of the reasons for this precedent is to prevent exactly what you're attempting to do here, which is to curb someone's freedom of expression using the law.
I'm not a lawyer so I won't say if they could win. I'm just saying that not all speech is covered under freedom of expression. Threats are not covered. Slander/libel is not covered.
that's called moving the goalpost, the original discussion is about whether or not the specific tweats would be considered threats under the law.
The answer is they wouldn't because there's nothing immediately actionable.
"Someone standing in front of you with a knife who says they're going to stab you would be considered a threat! therefore ... something something something ... a tweat by a politician should be punished!".
As I said before, you're not the first to try and curb someone's freedom of expression using the law.
>to clarify, in the US, "I will kill you" may or may not be considered a threat
This is all I'm responding to. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to assert that you absolutely can or cannot consider it a threat. But it's not black and white like you're implied, and are currently implying.
Please don't accuse someone of derailing a discussion if you forgot the context. I've been patient but you've been incindiary in every response. That's not illegal but it is not in the spirit of HN rules.
>As I said before, you're not the first to try and curb someone's freedom of expression using the law.
You're not the first person to pretend you can threaten to end lives and "be oppressed" when the authorities come.
I'll remind you once more that we're talking about a theory here, since Tan did not literally say "I will kill you". Is Tan's literal words a threat? My mind hasn't changed in this discussion so I'll repeat my point and end it here before it devolves into a flame war:
>it will depend on the interpretation of the judge in question who is reading the quotes.
Reflect on this conversation for next time, others would be less hesitant to flag your comments.
The consequences are a hit to your reputation (I think they call this "being canceled" nowadays). I guess you can get to a point of wealth where this doesn't really matter. But at least for 99% of people this is really harmful and takes a lot of effort to rectify.
I saw a clip from a popular right wing podcaster recently in which he was annoyed that his guests kept wishing death on people.
He was mostly annoyed it seemed because this meant he got demonitized or had to pull some content which cost him money. And that people didn't listen to his specific pre-show instruction to not call for death. And that some of his viewers got angry at him about this (I didn't quite follow why, they weren't angry about the death threats but somehow thought his removal of episodes made him a part of the deep state or something).
It isn't normal for anyone else, of course. As for Garry, he is heavily invested in SF politics.
> no big deal
It is a big deal only if Garry was consistently inflammatory. Otherwise, it can be safely relegated to careless jibe by a drunkard.
> words are meaningful and have consequences
True, but one is allowed to retract, excuse, apologize. One incident unto drastic consequences will result in heavy-handedness wielded often, a weaponization against anyone standing upto establishment or established norms (which is quite contrary to what either the left or the right would want, in the context of political discourse).
> adolescents, but adults
Are we being too sensitive, vindictive, projecting remorse? One look at tech Twitter (and deleted tweets) and we'd want to cancel them all. What good is that going to bring, other than create an inescapable and ever shrinking echo chamber?
> some modicum of respect, or at least decency
Politics gets dirty from time to time.
> Wishing a slow death on someone, even rhetorically
There is probably a socio-political climate in which such statements could be considered incitement, but in this case, lunatics using Garry's words to threaten and scare their victims is exactly that... a work of an opportunist lunatic who probably thinks highly of themself. That isn't on Garry.
> Are we being too sensitive, vindictive, projecting remorse? One look at tech Twitter (and deleted tweets) and we'd want to cancel them all. What good is that going to bring, other than create an inescapable and ever shrinking echo chamber?
It's simply nonsensical to think that there are two extremes of discourse, "echo chamber" and "people can feel free to voice threats," which are in opposition.
> It is a big deal only if Garry was consistently inflammatory. Otherwise, it can be safely relegated to careless jibe by a drunkard.
People on the business end of a threat certainly have a different perspective on what can be "safely relegated" to the "don't worry" category. There's nothing wrong with taking into account the perspective of those being threatened when determining whether something like this is a "big deal," as the parent poster presumably did, and as the law does.
> It isn't normal for anyone else, of course. As for Garry, he is heavily invested in SF politics.
How unique he is. It's hard to imagine a reality where lots of people are heavily invested in politics and behave foolishly because of it. That would be an alternate reality that is difficult to imagine.
But you would say this kinda thing to friends, people joke around all the time, it’s good to show that strength of emotion about something instead of having to PR speak your entire live.
Mate, no I don't say this to my friends, but even if I take your point: if I say it to my friends there won't be any impact on anyone's life. Gary's rant absolutely has a potential to impact lives. So you chose your words to the occasion, no?
You can be professional and be genuine (distinct from PR speak). Sure, you're not fraternizing with your subordinates as much as you could, but you're doing your job better and your subordinates will be happier.
No, I wouldn't. I have never said anything like that to my friends (nor have my friends ever said anything like that to me), and I can't imagine ever doing so.
We can debate about whether it should be normal, but clearly it is, right? For example we have the Darwin Award, where we mock people who actually died (not just rhetorically). I’m not the least bit edgy as far as millennials go, and I’ve made the joke that “the best thing Trump could do for the GOP is to get assassinated.” It always gets a laugh.
The firestorm is entirely because Tan is rich and Asian. There’s always been a taboo on “punching down,” but in recent years in certain circles politicians have moved positions in the hierarchy.
I mean, that's part of it, but if look at the quality of some of the analogies being made on this thread, "objectively not smart" on its own is clearly not sufficient to cause a firestorm.
Wishing death on a political opponent in a venue where they're sure to see it and might view it as a threat. Joking about someone who foolishly brought about their own death. They're exactly the same thing!
Not totally sure if this comment is ironic or not but wanted to expand on this thought either way.
Using a reference with threatening language in it that is potentially unknown by the people recieving it, makes a death threat even more sinister as it feels like you're building in plausible deniability and trying to have your cake and eat it.
It's basically admitting "if I just said this it would cross a line, but if I quote it instead then it'll not cross a line for people who know it's a quote, but still cross the line for the people I'm threatening. So I get to make the threat and disclaim any intent at the same time.
And? Was he giving a recital of Tupac's lyrics / reading it out loud, or was it pulled out of that context and aimed at someone specific?
I can call your mother a hamster and that your father smelt of elderberries; just because it's a quote from Monty Python doesn't mean it wouldn't be insulting to you.
Reading this article by Rebecca Solnit [0] posted on HN here [1]
absolutely helped me make sense of the Garry Tan story, and what is
going on in Californian politics.
It's well worth reading, but is a long and initially tedious article
bemoaning the passing of a gentler, humane culture.
Then about halfway through it grew some balls and teeth, and frankly I
found it shocking. I had no idea California was this degenerate.
And for those too close to it, no, this isn't just how every country's
politics is. It reads like Chicago in the 1920/30's, or perhaps more
like Mexico or El Salvator, with billionaires instead of drug lords.
Read alongside "The Californian Ideology" [2] it's eye opening and
paints a great picture of the slow trajectory of San Francisco and
California from a left-liberal counter-culture to extremist far-right
billionaire technofascism.
The wiki article is incoherent or at least not easy to sustain motivation enough to finish reading. I think the California ideology they seem to be hinting at can be better thought of as “luxury beliefs” the sort of which Ron Henderson writes a lot about. California is resource rich, historically. Historically this leads to growth and what I would call “messy progress.” It’s definitely gotten messier as growth surged in recent decades due largely to selfish policies that result from its very open (for better and surely for worse) political system.
It's also lengthy and hard work, and took me three or four reads to
fully grok. Suggest starting at p.61 Cyborg Masters and Robot Slaves
for the wrap-up. Thanks for the Henderson tip.
I find it interesting that you added "despite tech advancements". I don't see how the level of technological advancement enters into this equation at all.
Maybe the connection dandanua is alluding to is that mythology from
the beginning of the "Information Age" (circa 1980) that technology
would "bring us all together in a giant conversation of humankind". As
if. Now, here we are having this conversation on a platform owned and
run by those same "bunker men" who probably bought the laws that
destroyed the peered Internet that was our hope. We're still stuck in
1980, holding out that "technology will save us".
tech advancements = improvements of life for the whole humanity, and thus overall happiness. But it seems this naive thinking doesn't work in this world.
> tech advancements = improvements of life for the whole humanity
Yes, that equation is inaccurate. Tech advancements mean more powerful tools. Tools that can be used to improve things or can just as easily be used to make things worse.
The entire history of mankind indicates that it will always end up being a mix of both.
If you’re trying to learn about California and San Francisco from Solnit, you are far down the wrong path. My favorite part of that incoherent article was how Solnit takes credit for social movements that ended decades before she moved to San Francisco.
Actually white feminism is a technical term when used in my comment referring to a certain type of egotistical blindness to the reality of others enabled by an extreme privilege and narrative making of one’s own.
Solnit has no clue what she’s talking about. She writes as if San Francisco was a bohemian paradise in 1980 when she moved there when in fact it was already considered very expensive (the NYT would write that it was a city for childless yuppies a few years after she arrived), the gays were displacing blacks and Latinos in the Filmore and elsewhere (it was losing more of black residents then than anytime in the 21st century), and it was the financial capital of the west coast.
Most importantly: all the so-called billionaires that clueless progressives think live in San Francisco and influence its politics actually live in Atherton and couldn’t care less. You wouldn’t get clowns like Hallinan and Daly winning elections if there was any meaningful moderate faction in local politics. Which is why they so greatly fear the establishment of one in recent years.
Tupac was a gangster who'd been convicted of sexual assault. Personally I try to separate the artist from the human because humans are consistently awful creatures, and otherwise we'd never be able to enjoy any art ever. But I wouldn't be in support of Tupac running Y Combinator, or to be the CEO of pretty much any company, ever.
I like Freddie Gibbs and Danny Brown. Both release music that is extremely misogynistic.
Deeper, Freddie (+ Madlib, ofc)
> Slammin', half a thang of heroin in the bathroom
> Keep an AK and the backup in the backroom
> Cook a meal clean and she suck me like a vacuum
If I tweet at a woman I disagree with that she should be in the kitchen cooking me a meal clean and then sucking me like a vacuum, that's okay right? Because I'm just aping my favourite popular rapper?
The interesting thing about 2Pac is he grew up intelligent and was taught to respect women. Some of his earliest lyrics were very pro-women.
He changed his tone later in life as he was betrayed many times.
“Since we all came from a women, got our name from a women, and our game from a women. I wonder why we take from women, why we rape our women, do we hate our women? I think its time we killed for our women, be real to our women, try to heal our women, cus if we dont we'll have a race of babies that will hate the ladies, who make the babies. And since a man can't make one he has no right to tell a women when and where to create one”
Wonder how much of that change was personal and how much marketing. He'd be far from the first artist to appeal to the "thug life" despite having a relatively comfortable and conflict-free childhood. But in the 90's the music industry went HARD on selling that image.
