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.
What consequences should Gary face?