We are the ones who serve them coffee, deliver them food, suck their cocks, watch their kids, and mop their floors
...
To this end, we now make our first clear demand of Google. We demand that Google give three billion dollars to an anarchist organization of our choosing.
On the one hand I feel sorry for Kevin having to deal with these crackpots, on the other hand these crackpots are so bad at PR it's hilarious.
Funny, those words are roughly cribbed from a line in "Dirty Pretty Things":
The doctor: How come I've never seen you people before?
Okwe: Because we are the people you do not see. We are the ones who drive your cabs. We clean your rooms. And suck your cocks.
Yeah, I totally lost it at that last line. Still, I don't understand how people with grievances think it's ok to vilify and hurt others. The solution to one's suffering shouldn't be found by spreading the pain.
Seeing hateful messages about you spread out to your neighbors must feel like an emotional knife to the heart no matter how famous or successful you are.
The worst part is they're vilifying people who have no other crime other than being successful. These are people that may very well actually agree with the goals of the protestors (e.g. according to the article Kevin Rose does agree that the rent problem and others need to be solved). Or they would, if the protestors would actually try to talk to these people instead of attacking them.
Someone's been reading/watching too much Fight Club. That's close to verbatim of what Project Mayhem would spew on the elite, along with the smiley face. None of which seems threatening to me at all.
If only they would apply anarchism to the government's housing construction restrictions in SF. I think they would find that, without any tribute from Google, the capitalism they so hate would quickly lead to vast improvements to the housing market.
I think they mean that without their employers, they would get what their work is worth.
Of course, that's easy enough to prove. But these sort are usually afraid to try and prove it. They want everything arranged for them and someone else to bear all the risk.
That last line is quite curious, though. As far as I know, only a very small fraction of modern day anarchists is self-describing as anarchists. Most of the others consider the term unfashionable and derogatory.
Here in Europe the self-describing Anarchists are the Punks and the Black Block and they tend to drive people away from a cause by co-opting it.
Black Bloc is a tactic, not a group. The anarchists here have all turned into Maoists who venerate the Naxalite rebellion in India. Chairman Mao figures prominently in the old anarchist space I used to go to back when it was also a hacker space. Peasant armed revolt is ridiculous in a first world country, I stopped going also it's full of state spies to watch for anti pipeline protest planning another good reason to avoid the space.
They have precious little other way to make demands.
You don't have to take them seriously. You can condemn them for making threats, sure, if you disagree with that tactic. It's /writing them off/ that I hate - like they don't deserve a voice because you (=the top level commenter) think they haven't tried hard enough in life.
Well, it's not going to be a popular opinion but I think it's a shame he's been forced out. Simply having the wrong views shouldn't make him ineligible for a job.
That's an overly simplistic way of looking at it. He had a chance to resolve the matter differently and wasn't able to. It's possible/probable that he is not CEO material (for this company at this time).
depends on the job. being cto is one thing; being the ceo is a far more people-oriented role with a far more significant impact on how people who work for mozilla are potentially treated.
and this is not about his views; he actually donated money to help ensure that people would not get equal rights; even though those rights did not affect him in any way.
So today I learned the CEO is much more people-oriented role because everybody knows "technical" people aren't really people.
He voted for prop 8 which means he doesn't want people to have the same rights (which before that everybody had (of course!!!)), so it goes like this: Heaven on Earth --> prop 8 --> gay holocaust --> Brendan must go.
are you trying to spin prop 8 as a "difference of views"? let me break it down for you:
side a:
- straight people have rights
- gay people have the same rights
- the law does not discriminate in any way
side b:
- straight people have exactly the same rights as in side a
- gay people have fewer rights
- the law discriminates between people depending on who they love
there is literally not a single negative consequence for straight people if gay marriage is legalised, and yet eich spent $1000 in the hope that gay people would continue to be legally seen as lesser. of all the hundreds of causes out there, one motivated by pure spite was what he picked to actively work for.
now as for the "technical people aren't people" strawman, perhaps you aren't familiar with mozilla? it is a tech company - a significant fraction of their employees are technical people. and the company culture (which is shorthand for how the company treats and interacts with its employees) is definitely something the ceo can affect. the company technology stack is more in the cto's purview, and no one ever doubted that eich was competent at that.
Really, there are no views you can think of that would qualify someone as being ineligible for a job? What if someone refused to acknowledge women as people? What if someone refused to work with black people? What if someone viewed the holocaust as never having happened?
Yeah, I've been afraid to speak on it for quite some time, but I will now: I think that 'homosexual marriage' is a phrase which makes as much sense as the phrase 'green-tasting.'
FWIW, I supported the unsuccessful civil-union law in my state. I think anyone who wants to form a household and get the economic & regulatory benefits hitherto attached to marriage (insurance, hospital visits &c.) should be permitted to, regardless of sexual activity or indeed its absence (why shouldn't a fraternity, or a few friends, be able to form a civil union in order to get those same benefits?). I don't believe I hold any animus against homosexual folks.
But marriage is just not about sexual attraction, and the idea that it is, is rapidly destroying marriage.
I know this is going to come across as unfriendly, but I'm always bemused when people make these little plays for attention. It's a massive site, you're not one of the notable commenters, if HN isn't delivering value why not just stop reading it quietly rather than announcing it to the world?
You see it as a play for attention, I see it as an expression of disappointment in a community they otherwise like in the hope that that community will perform a little more introspection.
It seems somewhat dramatic to me too, but I also have found the comments on the stories around this issue somewhat disappointing. That was their way of communicating it, this comment is mine.
Because human beings have a desire to express opinion and emotion?
Your attitude is the same as a lot of the socially inept that roam the valley and this message board. If This Isn't The Most Efficient Logical Course Of Action (according my perspective) Then It Bemuses Me.
But what's wrong with expressing an opinion on someone else's action? You are the one that is socially inept. No, wait, you are just expressing your opinion on someone else expressing their opinion on someone else expressing themselves. Oh, chripes, what was I trying to say again?
You put those words in my mouth, buddy. To clarify, social ineptitude combined with a degree of self-assured narcissism, resulting in a total disregard for the opinions of other people which don't jive with the most "logical" worldview. It's possible to be socially introverted and still considerate to other people.
Not the readership - assuming similar statistics to reddit, the vast majority don't comment, so we can't know - but it's certainly reasonable to draw that conclusion about the commenters from the comments on majority of threads regarding social issues.
Of course, there's a feedback loop in that people won't comment where the majority seem to disagree heavily with their morals, so that doesn't help with what threads like these look like. The sheer amount of personal attacks against people who disagree with victim-blaming views of this in this thread serve as a warning not to speak up.
This is pretty accurate, I would not have commented at all in here until I read this and just wanted to back you up on this point.
I read these type of threads on HN constantly and every time I walk away absolutely disgusted with what I see said in them. I don't have the will to comment myself because it just would not change anyones opinion and they would instantly go into attack mode.
Without trying to start a debate, it's well-established that women talk about personal things more readily than men do, and at greater length, and express emotion more readily than men do. This real difference between men and women is often described as a character flaw in men by women, and in women by men (if that wasn't too hard to unravel).
1) Despite your disclaimer you are sounding unfeeling.
2) It seems convenient for a (presumably) relatively healthy and youthful person to be advocating large sacrifices that will hit others first.
3) Many of us don't share your pessimistic view of human progress. If we can figure out how to thwart death from disease, we can probably figure out how to deal with overpopulation.
4) And of course the obvious, and entirely heartless rejoinder: if you're so keen on death to reduce overpopulation, isn't it a bit selfish of you to keep on living?
5) He hasn't offered a sensible and complete policy - what counts as saving lives? Cancer treatment? What about transplant surgery? What about amputations? What about medicines that prevent many conditions from becoming serious? Or lets make things really fun - what about mental illness? How about a person who's solving overpopulation in some way who suddenly contracts cancer? Where does one draw the line and who gets to draw it?
This is a slippery slope and the only solution is not to go down it.
There is no solution I can see, and that's worrying. While we're all running around curing diseases, solving global warming etc, the thing that will kill off our species is our own "success".
6. You're expressing yesterday's fear. Population growth in the first world is stable, low, or even negative. We currently have no reason to believe that the third world's population growth won't do the same. Current projections for peak world population are "a little bit larger than now" instead of "trillions and trillions", and the problems of providing for them indefinitely "surmountable".
* Population growth in the first world is stable, low, or even negative.
A quick google search shows that whilst population was pretty stable in UK in the 80s, since then it's been steadily rising. Growth is now 0.75% a year.
The US has a similar story, fertility rate below 2.0 plus migration from the third world results in net population growth, even though the population of the US is no longer "exploding".
Here is exactly how you deal with some guy writing in to tell you you're too fat: delete the email and get on with your life.
It's simple, it's easy, it solves the problem.
Of course it's not the modern solution of publicly bullying your correspondent into a retraction while claiming the moral high ground but it works and it's less unpleasant.
It is, of course, important to pick one's battles; but wherever possible, bullshit should be called out and dragged into the light, not quietly tolerated. Especially when, as in this case, it is widespread, entrenched, pernicious bullshit.
And you've got the "bullying" backwards. It wasn't Ms. Livingston doing it. You should know by now that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is a comforting lie we tell to children.
If I took the meat out of the sandwich, the sandwich would go downhill, too. Selectively quoting just the crust of a comment and loudly disclaiming about the quality of the discourse - possibly you're right about the quality, but if so then I'm exhibit A, and you're exhibit B.
I've got one of the schnozzle bags with a compatible mat. It is categorically not cumbersome, not tedious, weighs the same and is filled with down so it has an R-value[1] of 5.9 instead of 1 which is what really matters when you're using a sleeping mat in a tent on a cold night.
[1] The R-value is a measure of how insulating a mat is, higher is better.
You've made, on average, one comment per hundred days you were here[1]. Nobody noticed you were here in the first place and I doubt they will notice you are gone. I have no idea why you are telling people you are leaving instead of simply not visiting anymore.
[1] And they're not grellas-style quality long form comments either.
The U.S. government is one of the oldest governments to not have a major political reform. The U.S. is one of the youngest countries though. Same Constitution (though it is bent for whatever purpose is "needed" at the time), same general layout, etc.
The U.K. has shifted to a democracy since the formation of the U.S. Germany has changed its power structure a few times. Same for China, Japan, etc.
The U.S. is in need of some deep major reform, and I am pretty sure every political ideology agrees with that (just don't agree on the type of reform).
I really think it would be in everyone's best interest though if the U.S. underwent peaceful Balkanization.
I am not sure why people in California have to live under the same rules as someone in Georgia. Their interests are completely different, their values, their demographics. It would stop a lot of wasted productivity over stupid bickering. "I want my kid to hate the homosexers and not learn about devolution!" Cool, Georgia can fuck off and become a shit hole. California can go full People's Republic of Kalifornia, and quit sending so much money to the federal government.
I mean Obama is the leader of 300+ million people. Doesn't that just seem insane?
It would also probably end the wars overseas.
I just don't understand people's want to hold the union together. Just let it go.
Political reform sounds nice. I don't have too much to say about that; I mostly wanted to voice disagreement with your tangent:
De-federalizing destroys a lot of the political and economic clout that the US can hold over other, smaller countries. This is to the advantage of all the states; I don't think any state seriously wants to secede from union and lose the benefits the federal government entails. No one is forcing the states to "hold the union together" against their will.
Other benefits of a federal government: shared currency and unified economic zone makes for more efficient interstate trade (see: Germany); shared federal agencies make for more efficient shared resources vs every state doing its own thing; etc.
And more specifically, re your statement "I am not sure why people in California have to live under the same rules as someone in Georgia:" they really don't. States write their own laws (in addition to federally-imposed laws for all states). Example of the day, some states have laws legalizing marriage between same-sex couples, other states have laws explicitly forbidding marriage between same-sex couples.
Interesting that you should choose this word, since 'federalism' is associated with the Federalist Papers, which actually promote the kind of limited federal government over the states that GP is referring to. Hamilton, who authored the Federalist Papers, is also responsible for the kind of centralized economy that you describe, by creating a federal bank to assume the states' debt after the war. (The other half of this compromise was that the nation's capital was moved from New York City to what was (at the time) a mostly uninhabitable swamp in Maryland).
Even more ironically, the Federalist Papers were written primarily to convince the then-conservative New York (and a few other states) that they would be permitted their own 'states' rights' under the new constitution.
I do not disagree with anything you are saying. My language could have been more clear — I did not mean 'moving from the federal system (divided powers, central government) to one with less state powers,' but rather TruthElixirX's idea of moving from the federal system to separate states with no central government.
>De-federalizing destroys a lot of the political and economic clout that the US can hold over other, smaller countries.
Yeah. I want that. The U.S. fucks around with other countries too much. Iran, all of South America, Asia, etc. It is not just clout, it is direct military and economic warfare to bend countries to the will of the federal government and Pentagon.
>No one is forcing the states to "hold the union together" against their will.
You are quite wrong, "They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot -- a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it."[1], also the Civil War moved the Union from a voluntary organization of the states to mandatory.
> > De-federalizing destroys a lot of the political and economic clout that the US can hold over other, smaller countries.
> Yeah. I want that. The U.S. fucks around with other countries too much. Iran, all of South America, Asia, etc. It is not just clout, it is direct military and economic warfare to bend countries to the will of the federal government and Pentagon.
That's fine. And I, too, disapprove of many of the US' actions in South America, Iran, Asia, etc. But do keep in mind the economic and quality of life consequences (for US citizens) of losing that clout, and realize that not everyone agrees with you that trading clout for good will is worth it.
> You are quite wrong, "They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot -- a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it."[1], also the Civil War moved the Union from a voluntary organization of the states to mandatory.
If you think I am wrong, I do not think you understand my position. I agree, the threat of federal coercion exists. But it is not actually being exercised. The elected leaders of Louisiana, etc, do not actually want Louisiana, etc, to secede.
That is why I think federal coercion is not (at present) an actual barrier to secession — I think the loss of federal benefits and subsequent trade/political disadvantage with the remainder of the US is a much greater factor. Louisiana and Georgia, etc's, politicians, business leaders, etc, realize this, which is why the only place such a statement can get any traction is on the internet where every uneducated asshole can voice their opinion. (And trolls who are fine with LA and GA being shitholes can jump in on it too.)
...
To this end, we now make our first clear demand of Google. We demand that Google give three billion dollars to an anarchist organization of our choosing.
On the one hand I feel sorry for Kevin having to deal with these crackpots, on the other hand these crackpots are so bad at PR it's hilarious.