Hacker News Reader

You know, I've made a point in my life of avoiding people that are actively looking to be "offended", because they always find a way to do so.

RG said something publicly that's probably been uttered a million times between friends bantering. I've heard things that are a thousand times worse. It's unfortunate that they chose the wrong channel for that sort of utterance, but frankly the only people "hurt" by what they said were the people that chose to be "hurt" by it. Let's be clear, being "offended" is always a choice. There's 7 billion people on the planet, you'll never be able to avoid things you dislike, but you have a choice in how you deal with it. I choose to respect other people's freedom of expression, and interact with people I think add value. I don't have to throw a public temper tantrum if someone has wildly different values. (I view posting private correspondence publicly to try to shame someone as being equivalent to a temper tantrum)

I hear people say a lot of things I think are /stupid/, but I never feel a need to tell them that they're "offensive", I just don't deal with those people when I realize our values don't align. So I find the idea that RG broke some obvious "code" that "everyone" agrees to is laughable. Clearly, not "everyone" agrees with your very sensitive sense of humor.

The way I see it: they pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off. My level of caring about that is pretty much zero.

overgard: there are two internally consistent ways to interpret the matter:

1) "they [only] pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off" including this fellow who posted the email. If you truly believe that they only pissed off people actively looking to be pissed off, then only those people will be pissed off now. No one else. There would be no real change in RG's reputation, and all this post does is take up a spot on the front page.

2) they pissed off a lot of people, including those that aren't "actively looking to be pissed off". In that case, dredging up the past actually does affect them even more.

You can't have it both ways. You want to believe that only people actively looking to be offended would be bothered by the remark and that somehow discussing the past is actually hurting them more, but they are inconsistent beliefs.

> I choose to respect other people's freedom of expression

Right, which is why you should respect other people's rights to discuss the matter at hand. You shouldn't get upset because this conversation is happening.

> I don't have to throw a public temper tantrum if someone has wildly different values. (I view posting private correspondence publicly to try to shame someone as being equivalent to a temper tantrum)

RG's tweet was public and so is this discussion. The email reminded us of the original tweet. There was no rape joke in the email. I think you are missing that part -- the actual offense that we are talking about happened long before this email in a public forum (twitter).

RG apologized, true. But that doesn't magically mean that the internet forgets that the event happened. And it sounds like you wish for everyone to forget.

> The way I see it: they pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off. My level of caring about that is pretty much zero.

But your level of caring about the fact that history is being rehashed is almost surely nonzero.

So someone tweeted a "rape joke" from their account. The deleted the joke and apologized pretty much immediately. But now it's fair game to release their private emails and generally insult them all over the internet? What's wrong with you? For someone pretending to be a sensitive person you're sure lacking in empathy.

>There are certain things that a decent human being does not think to joke about, and rape is one of those things.

So, you don't know a single person in your life who is actually a very decent human being but made an "unacceptable" joke some time? You don't believe people can be just ignorant about a certain issue without being horrible people?

> The deleted the joke and apologized pretty much immediately. But now it's fair game to release their private emails and generally insult them all over the internet?

Given that there is no confidentiality notice in the email, I don't see how either party could expect that the conversation was private.

More generally, if they didn't think it was offensive in the first place, why did they delete the joke? Why not stand behind it? Own up to it?

Do you expect some sort of mental erasure where everyone magically forgets that this happened in the first place?

> What's wrong with you? For someone pretending to be a sensitive person you're sure lacking in empathy.

Please tell me where Kyle signed a confidentiality agreement with Tom. If you point it out, I would agree that releasing the email is inappropriate.

> So, you don't know a single person in your life who is actually a very decent human being but made an "unacceptable" joke some time? You don't believe people can be just ignorant about a certain issue without being horrible people?

I fail to see how you can be ignorant about rape in the same way that I fail to see how you can be ignorant about murder or genocide. BTW: Note that I didn't use the word "unacceptable" in any of my responses here.

You are touching upon a key point, namely the long-term memory of the Internet. That's a much longer discussion, and I intentionally avoided judgment statements regarding the nature of the memory, but it would be to your benefit to act as if statements made on the Internet are in the public record

>Please tell me where Kyle signed a confidentiality agreement with Tom. If you point it out, I would agree that releasing the email is inappropriate.

Statements of this category are not going to persuade anyone to your side in a debate over social tact.

>confidentiality agreement

It's not about legality, it's about the expectation of privacy. Email is by default private. Here's how I see this: Tom emails Kyle about a job. Kyle turns it down because of his discomfort with the firm. Tom asks what he's talking about. He says "that one joke you once made" and immediately posts the whole thing on the internet to get internet points from his internet friends for fighting the man or some other misguided emotion.

>I fail to see how you can be ignorant about rape in the same way that I fail to see how you can be ignorant about murder or genocide.

I'm not talking about rape. I'm talking about the cultural import and context of rape jokes. That it's a topic that can potentially trigger rape victims and cause more hurt than intended is a function of our current social circumstances, and that kind of sensitivity comes with education. Some people don't have that education, and it's okay. They aren't bad people necessarily. Again, you don't know any good people who make bad jokes? I can't believe that.

>More generally, if they didn't think it was offensive in the first place, why did they delete the joke?

But that's the point! It is offensive, and they did the right thing by deleting it and apologizing. What's the beef now? I don't expect mental erasure, but the other extreme of making a blacklist of everyone who ever made a joke that made you uncomfortable isn't right either. Give people a chance to better themselves and you will have a better world. If you just keep shaming offenders till the end of time how do you ever expect them to see the light?

Just note that you're defending this tweet: "I'mma rape you in your mouth"

As the late great George Carlin said: It all depends on how you construct the joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2a5-RrwWZ8

You're not funny enough to joke about rape is all. The problem is, neither are these rapgenius guys. Don't get me wrong, I'm also grossly offended - not as a feminist, or a decent human being, just as a comedian. :)

Are you really offended "as a comedian"?

Let's be real, if you are offended by a joke, it almost certainly has something to do with the content of the joke. Poor joke delivery, or just unfunny jokes, are not in and of themselves offensive, nobody is "offended" by "Why did the chicken cross the road?"

Bad jokes aren't offensive, bad jokes that are also tackless may be however.