zlacker

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.

>>solfox+(OP)
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.

>>solfox+(OP)
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.

>>solfox+(OP)
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.

>>solfox+(OP)
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.

>>solfox+(OP)
Perhaps Twitter needs a breathalyser option for the more excitable executive.

>>gowld+42
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.

>>solfox+(OP)
> 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".

>>gowld+42
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.

>>solfox+(OP)
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.

>>iancmc+B7
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.