What consequences should Gary face?
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.
So, in the end, it can be everything from nothing to a criminal charge and conviction with loosing his job somewhere in the middle.
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.
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.
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.
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?
https://missionlocal.org/2024/01/y-combinator-ceo-garry-tans...
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.
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."
Even if you take "die slow motherfucker" literally, it's not a threat. A wish that someone dies is not a threat. "I will kill you" is a threat.
That's very clear!
In no way is "die slow motherfucker" incitement to murder, whether or not the person is question is actually murdered.
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.
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.
Or of course, “Won’t someone do something about this troublesome priest”
Yes 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.
“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 believe my rule prevents more bad arguments.
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.
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.
https://quinnanlaw.com/criminal-defense/elements-of-criminal...
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.
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.
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.
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.