zlacker

>>Strato+(OP)
> Tan, for his part, apologized over the weekend, noting that his post was a reference to a Tupac Shakur lyric

Ah, so if it's a quote, it doesn't matter, because even though you've decided when to use them, they're not "your words"

Thanks, going to publish press releases with Cannibal Corpse lyrics going forward.

>>badreq+z8
The fact that it is a quote (which I didn't know) moves it out of the extremely disturbing category and into the extremely cringe & very disappointing category.

SF politics is a clown show on all sides - Garry has lost serious credibility that he could play some part in cleaning it up. I think he knows that.

>>bhawks+Ue
To me, it's extremely disturbing that someone would consider this whole thing as extremely disturbing in the first place.

Whether people in the US are extremely oversenstive to tweets and words, or that the tweets and words have the power to suddenly make regular people hateful and violent - neither of those states are normal.

Either that, or the country really is a few Twitter sparks away from civil war, which again would... not be a normal state of things.

>>TeMPOr+7u
Posting that you want a group of city councilors to die is not normal behavior. It's not normal when sober, it's not normal on alcohol, it's not normal for any functioning member of society. Anyone saying these things is disturbing. The fact that someone who a number of people believe is intelligent and worth listening to would say such things is extremely disturbing.

>>Araina+Kw
> ... not normal behavior ...

Are we sure about that? There are politicians who have coordinated/enabled things with consequences that would justify capital punishment if someone believes in that as an option. For example, from a raw moral perspective a reasonable person could support executing the entire congressional Aye vote for the US sending the army into Afghanistan.

That would be a terrible mistake, because the incentives don't check out, politics would become a bloodbath when people make honest mistakes, bloody vengeance helps no-one and there is a plausible question around whether the person voting is making a personal decision or just trying to channel their voters. But since it is a superficially reasonable position I assume people would say that sort of thing regularly. To argue it out and learn why it is a bad idea, if nothing else.

>>roenxi+HS
In the situation you posit, that sort of action would come from a vote, not a single person's vigilante call for action. That is the difference.

While I'd argue for a normal person that posting something like that would just fly under the radar and disappear into the aether of the internet, the same does not apply to someone who heads a large publicly visible company, and who posts publicly on an account associated (implicitly) with that company.

>>kyleam+D61
Politicians call for the death of their opponents all the time. See Lyndsey Graham's recent tweet calling for an attack on Iran.

>>zoklet+5z1
That's a government person calling for an attack on another government. This is a citizen calling for an attack on a group of individuals, government-involved or not. It's not even remotely the same.

It's literally illegal to give death threats (not that I think this qualifies as a particularly serious one). But that's the difference between this and your argument with politicians rattling sabres. (Just to make it clear, I don't feel so strongly about the whole situation, but I do think making false equivalences is misleading)