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.

> Gary hasn't bullied or abused anyone

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.

I have a similar rule: "The first person to tell their opponent 'your ideas are offensive' forfeits the debate".

I believe my rule prevents more bad arguments.

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.