"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.
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?!
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).
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?
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.
Unless his contract specifically says that, bull.
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.
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.
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.
Thats a ridiculous position to say he’s unfit.
But I get it. He’s threading the political establishment so they’ll make hay with this to tear down an opponent. It’s politics.
Seriously?
> 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.
USA, USA????
Fuck this odious turd and anyone who would try to excuse him.
I think what you mean to say was:
Fuck Y Combinator as a staff, message board, and as a mother fucking VC group. And if you want to be down with Y Combinator, then fuck you too.
Sam Altman, fuck you too.
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.
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.
Apologizing is great, but it can't make people unlearn something they learned about the person.
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.
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.
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.
"It was after work hours" isn't an excuse.
But if you’re a politician, it makes sense to claim you “fear for your life”.
Like I said, they want to get rid of this guy since he’s a political opponent.
We see this time and again. And yet every election cycle we go back for - and/or are only given - more of the same.