Justine Sacco, Internet Justice, and the Dangers of a Righteous Mob

An anonymous reader writes "So what exactly was the injustice that everyone was fighting against here? There were no pro-Sacco factions, nobody thought her comment was funny, and it became clear early on that her employers were not going to put up with this. It was quite easy for groups to unite against her precisely because it was such an obviously idiotic comment to make. By the time Valleywag had posted her tweet, the damage to her career was already done; there wasn't any 'need' for further action by anyone. The answer is a bit darker – this wasn't really about fairness, it was about entertainment."

Comments

Fantastic summary!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I feel like I understand the issue so well now! Thanks, samzenpus!

Re:Fantastic summary!

[Anonymous Coward]

"You shot who in the what now?"
I have absolutely no idea what this summary is referring to, aside from something involving someone named Sacco. I don't know any Saccos. Sounds like a baseball player.
"So what exactly was the injustice that everyone was fighting against here?"

Re:Fantastic summary!

[Anonymous Coward]

In fairness it was just a click away to the article. Which contained a link to the original story. That did a poor job of covering what should have been a 4chan thread, almost as if Forbes didn't give it their undivided attention. But who on Slashdot doesn't pay attention to the soap opera-esque blatherings of a PR exec who made an off-color joke?

Re:Fantastic summary!

[TangoMargarine]

Don't forget the bit where after you clicked the summary link, you had to go through an empty Forbes quote page to get to the link to the original article.

WINNING

Re:Fantastic summary!

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of the summary was not to inform, but to earn clicks. And it did. From you, in fact. And me.

Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was anyone actually offended by her remark?
Or do people just like being outraged?

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment offends me.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[MightyMartian]

That's the funny thing. I haven't read very many comments from South Africans, or Africans in general, demonstrating their anger. The majority of the "outrage" seems to be coming from Europeans and North Americans.

I hesitate to call what has happened "entertainment". It was more of a good old' fashioned mob, but "on a computer". People get a rush out of being outraged and being part of a communal attack on an errant individual or group. They can wip themselves up into a vast moral outrage, feel very superior to the person in question (even if the likelihood is fairly high that they've said the same or worse) and eak out some vicarious revenge that they can use to pump up their ego.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's probably it exactly. It would be pretty hard to actually be offended since the remark was so obviously born from idiocy. I mean does she really think that white people don't get aids? Or that white people don't get aids from unprotected sex (or needles) with infected people? Crazy right? Yes, parts of Africa have really high infection rates. I've been to both South Africa and Angola - they have signs all over the place asking people to use condoms and have free ones available in many of the bathrooms. But what would that have to do with being white? I've no idea; probably nobody else does either. It is hard to be offended by an idiot. Honestly, when you know someone is stupid or misinformed, do you really care what that person thinks of you? Not me. People whose opinion I respect - sure. But idiots? Nope. Not one bit.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't read very many comments from South Africans, or Africans in general, demonstrating their anger

Do you speak Afrikaans, Xhosa or any of the many other languages common in the region?

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans get a dopamine boostfrom being outraged and feeling morally superior. For some people, it's practically the only thing going for them in their lives. Twitter and Tumblr is like crack to these people. They have a name, Social Justice Warriors, because you know, real justice doesn't cut it. See also Professional Victims and White Knights.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Twitter and Tumblr is like crack to these people..."

And slashdot, reddit, 4chan, etc

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's pretty obvious that she not so misinformed that she thinks white people are immune to aids. That was the joke. She basically was saying, "isn't it funny to imagine a person that thought white people can't get aids."

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[fiannaFailMan]

That's the funny thing. I haven't read very many comments from South Africans, or Africans in general, demonstrating their anger. The majority of the "outrage" seems to be coming from Europeans and North Americans.

Which African news sources have you been following? Clearly you must be following more of them than news sources in North America and Europe, since you've made a comprehensive enough survey to be able to say where the majority of the outrage (or as you put it, "outrage" in sneering quotation marks) is coming from.

I hesitate to call what has happened "entertainment". It was more of a good old' fashioned mob, but "on a computer". People get a rush out of being outraged and being part of a communal attack on an errant individual or group.

So only the victims of racism should be offended by racism? We in the west had no business being offended by Apartheid in South Africa? Only Syrians should be offended by what their government is doing to them? Only black people should be offended by the treatment of blacks in America? Only Indians should be offended by the racist remarks that appear on /. every time their country is mentioned? Only children should be offended by child abuse? Only women should be offended when a woman gets raped?

They can wip (sic) themselves up into a vast moral outrage, feel very superior to the person in question (even if the likelihood is fairly high that they've said the same or worse) and eak out some vicarious revenge that they can use to pump up their ego.

And...? What's wrong with feeling superior to a racist? You say that like it's a bad thing. I think it's a good thing.

(even if the likelihood is fairly high that they've said the same or worse)

Projecting, much? Can't say I've ever cracked a racist joke about catching AIDS in Africa. I've never said the same or worse. The likelihood of saying the same or worse is pretty low for most normal people. Maybe not for you, but it is for me. But then I'm not the one defending racism here.

Funny how quickly the defenders of racism come out of the woodwork. A bit more subtle than the pointy white hoods it it's still with us, as your post demonstrates.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Lumpy]

People like being outraged when they are insulated from others. It's a typical, "Mee too ZOMG!" online reaction.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am outraged you are offended by that!

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

But then I'm not the one defending racism

That's quite a convenient outlook on things. Much like people who oppose censorship are defending child rapists and such. Problem is... you'd better be a mind read if you want to declare what someone else's opinions are.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody made a tasteless joke, let's all pile on to show how not-racist we are! Anyone who doesn't want to see this person purged North Korea style is a racist!

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're getting buthurt because they're offended by what really ends up being, well, a pretty accurate reflection of rape in SA.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't we all jus -- nevermind, fuck you.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Hatta]

The likelihood of saying the same or worse is pretty low for most normal people.

False. Her comment made light of a terrible situation, to be sure. But importantly, it did not advocate for any bad things to happen to anyone. Have most normal people done worse? Yes.

Most people supported the Iraq war. Most people support the War on Drug Users. Most people support "enhanced interrogation", aka torture. You can turn on Fox News any day of the week, and find people saying things far worse than what Sacco said. Why are they worse? Because they are seriously trying to implement policies that harm people. Get some perspective.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[khallow]

So only the victims of racism should be offended by racism?

Well there is this thing in legal theory called "standing". The idea crudely is that for things that don't rise to the level of a crime, then one needs to demonstrate that one has been adversely affected by the behavior or activity. If one can't do this, such as would be the case with a whiny, anonymous person at a keyboard, then one doesn't have standing and hence, the judge can tell them to shut up and get lost.

I think this is an excellent way to deal with the endless, useless complaints of racism for behavior and opinions that harms no one aside possibly from the instigator. As a bonus, it gives you more time for your other odious habits.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Smacks of rant, but everyone should be allowed to voice opinion...uh, um, oh, not?

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you're both wrong. Currently in South Africa there's a trend of AIDS infected men targeting and raping black women/girls. Her ill-chosen quote was simply reflecting this fact that she's not likely to be a target because of her skin color.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[sumdumass]

It isn't that whites are immune to aids, it is about the differences in culture and education about aids in africa. Whites in africa are more prone to follow western concepts about safe sex so H.I.V/A.I.D.S in africa vastly impacts the white population less than the black populstions. Another problem is that Eugenics is not that far removed from africa and a lot of talk about using condums gets dismissed as trying to qeed the blacks, or certain tribes out of the population so unprotected sex with strangers is encouraged in some areas. There was even at one time claims of a cure by having unprotected sex with a virgin which condemned a lot if innocent girls to rape and infection.

I don't think tjis is at all a joking matter but it likely will not get better any time soon. Maybe making fun of the culture and life styles is needef to get people to actually examine the problems. I don't think many who clain the comment wss bad understand any of that.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

I speak English, which is very common in the region.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you believe that Sacco actually thinks white people are immune to AIDS? Do you think Sacco was actually trying to insult blacks, as opposed to making a (poorly delivered) commentary on white privilege?

Do you understand the difference between racism, and (poor) racial satire and humor?

Essentially, what you are getting mad about is this lady's lackluster skills as a comedian, when she in fact is not a comedian. But this gives you the opportunity to engage in the very thing you accuse others of - coming out of the woodwork to be the SJW that you were destined to be, along with the millions of other SJWs on the internet looking for any excuse to demonstrate their moral superiority.

Captcha: unjust

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this not modded up? People think they haven't done something worse, because people hate being wrong. They hate being wrong so much they ignore evidence to the contrary, and make stuff up to support their rightness.

Supporting war is much much worse than cracking a joke about aids in Africa.

Sacco isn't supporting anything that gets people killed. Most people do.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't read very many comments from South Africans, or Africans in general, demonstrating their anger

Do you speak Afrikaans, Xhosa or any of the many other languages common in the region?

You mean English? Yes, I believe GP does know a bit of English. Also, GP is right - pretty much nobody here in South Africa cares or even knew about the noodle incident which TFS and TFA fail to describe.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Eunuchswear]

Early AIDS joke - The hardest part about catching AIDS is trying to convince your parents you're Haitian.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[CauseBy]

There once was a man named Rex
With an extremely small organ of sex
And he said with composure
When arrested for exposure
De minimis non curat lex

"De minimis" is not exactly the same thing as standing but I see your point.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[jellomizer]

I think people just like being outraged.

We like to feel like we are on the moral high ground. For many people the only way to do that is to be outraged. So the fact we are outraged it makes us feel good, because it makes us feel like we are a better, more moral person.

Why do you think there is so much outrage on a lot of stupid things, because the stupid things stupid people have opinions on.
Here are some of my favorite things I see people get insulted about.

Sex: We all think about it, so we have some sort of opinion about it. So Homosexuality, Abortion, Birth Control, Rights and privileges of your and your opposite sex, are very popular. Either you can be strongly for or against it, they are full of stupid platitude, almost all of them avoid the root issues that are involved.

Family: We all them. There where we get issues of Race (Your super extended family), Family values, such as discipline of children, education, Your general political stance Left or Right, which is often based on how your were raised, as well as religion.

Religion: Strong view for yours or lack of yours, Religion often ties to the other things as well, and gives people who cannot make up their mind their stance on something something to follow. Even Atheists will use the fact that they are an atheists and take the opinion of the other atheists to take their moral stance on issues.

Usually if we have all the facts and are knowledgeable about both sides we are rarely so outraged by it. As normally both sides of the issues tend to have a sense of rational behind them past the Groups platitudes. This doesn't mean you that you need to take an it is all good attitude, but at least not getting outraged all the time.

As for the Sacco tweet... It was just a joke that went off. First Aids and STD Hits the Sex issue, then she tossed Race into the mix, so it cause automatic outrage. However I think the point of the Joke was to raise awareness of the high levels of AIDs in Africa with a disproportional amount happening in its native communities. Sure it was a stupid idea of a joke, but for the most part I would just let it slide, as it isn't really worth getting upset about.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

I found some racially insensitive crap on the first page of your comments. I'm calling your employer now in an attempt to have you fired.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[fahrbot-bot]

Was anyone actually offended by her remark? Or do people just like being outraged?

While perhaps *you* were not offended it is arguably, objectively an offensive, insensitive and racist remark. It's especially troubling coming from well-to-do first-world person about an issue that greatly impacts the not-so-well-to-do people of third-world. Like the remark (Wikipedia says is commonly misattributed to Marie Antoinette) "Let them eat cake".

To be fair, offensive, insensitive and racist things can be funny given the right presentation and audience - we are all idiots if we cannot reflect on our own thoughts and behaviors - and I understand that her tweet may have been intended as "dark humor", but that sort of thing is really difficult to execute correctly in writing - especially in under 140 characters - as opposed to, say, in a comedy club. (and she's not known as a comedian)

Ultimately, at least several examples from her Twitter feed seemed to indicate that she has a brain/mouth filter problem and she should have that checked out. If nothing else, from now on, she should turn off her phone prior to entering an airport.

Re: Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

thing is AIDS /HIV is rampant in black Africa and in black diaspora communities. Some how it is both racist to ignore this reality and at the same time racist to point out that the continent is riddled with the virus. The biggest carrier of the disease in the US is the black female community. A close second black men, a distant third Hispanic women. Other populations have a very low rate...

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[epyT-R]

It must feel good to hop on these bandwagons of 'righteousness'!

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

See, the thing about standing is that it's something you need for redress in a court of law. The reason we have a concept of "standing" is that there are many kinds of incidents and social wrongs that are best addressed by other avenues, such as private action and public campaigns.

This is exactly one of those situations. That a lame, racist comment was made by a PR executive and created a media firestorm should surprise exactly no one.

If the only way to cause social change were in court, then you wouldn't need to fret about what kinds of issues the court would take in the first place.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was JFK's CIA who got Mandela arrested in 1962. Yet a Twitter post is an egregious travesty.

OK, I think I see how this works. You're nuts.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Immerman]

The problem is that things like racism, sexism, anti-atheism, etc. don't just harm the person saying them, they contribute to a tapestry of cultural biases which harms every member of the target group. A death by a thousand paper cuts leaves you no less dead, even if any particular cut taken alone is no more than a minor annoyance. Every young gay person who hears "That's gay" used as an insult will be that much more uncomfortable with their sexuality - one comment can be shrugged off, thousands a year, not so much. And of course the only reason such a statement would ever harm the speaker is if another tapestry of cultural norms finds it offensive. And believe it or not that second, more tolerant of other groups, tapestry does not actually have such overwhelming support that it can neutralize the impact of the first. Go ahead and compare the median salaries of professional black women and white men who have comparable backgrounds, jobs, and performance reviews if you need evidence.

Even the concept of "standing" has it's issues. For example a rogue, non-elected element in my supposedly democratic government is monitoring every phone call, email, and presumably internet forum post I make, in direct violation of the rights guaranteed me under the 4th amendment. That is a situation which I can clearly see will unavoidably undermine my liberty and the democratic principles which shape my relationship with my government, yet because that monitoring does not directly harm me I have no standing to challenge it's legality. In fact the only ones who *do* have standing are those whisked away to illegal prisons without a jury trial, and the large corporations being paid for their complicity in the monitoring. Thank goodness the corporations are at least getting hit hard enough in the pocketbook overseas that they are starting to complain.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone rattles along on how they've never said anything offensive, or wrong, until you actually find some quote from them when they were younger, drunk, or just generally being an ass.
Then suddenly it's all "But I didn't MEEEEEEEn it....

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[32771]

That, and lets not forget:
http://xkcd.com/386/
So here is my contribution to "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white! â" Justine Sacco"

There is this article I remember about British women increasing the chance of getting HIV by having unprotected sex in Africa:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/26/us-sextourism-idUSN2638979720071126

There is a clear potential for her being wrong about whiteness causing rational behaviour or something similar. While some might argue that often it is just easier to shut up, she could have rather said something like "I let the guys use condoms".

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[epyT-R]

Funny how quickly the defenders of racism come out of the woodwork. A bit more subtle than the pointy white hoods it it's still with us, as your post demonstrates.

Funny how quickly legions of irrational idiots bust out the ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies every time someone questions their political correctness-driven groupthink 'outrage.' People questioning these political agitators are not bigots. They know this 'outrage' is purposely designed to get as big a yield as possible regardless of what qualifies as a reasonable response to specific circumstances.

People like you are like that smarmy, overconfident yet easily-needled kid in class who gets picked on all the time because he gets unreasonably upset over nothing. To hide his insecurity, he's always looking for a reason to be 'outraged' at others' behavior so that he has justification to 'smite' them (or get authority to do so). The fact that making offhand comments on the internet results in career suicide suggests a culture wide ailment. The fact that most of this irrationality can be traced right back to the 'social justice' PC crowd's enough-is-never-enough position is not a surprise.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[superwiz]

Only black people should be offended by the treatment of blacks in America?

Fuck you. Fuck you with a cherry on top. Fuck you with a chain saw and a cherry on top. 53% of the votes went to a black President who couldn't get the economy running and who was running against a businessman with a very clear understanding of how to stabilize destabilizing businesses. Had Obama been any other President he would have lost in shame. Yet he won. Because of how America treats blacks? Fuck you!

Re: Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately Sacco has highlighted the HIV problem among blacks. After decades of education that whites have successfully integrated into personal sexual behavior, blacks still act like it's 1980 and everyone is still in the dark about what causes this plague.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[rk]

Still waiting for the explanation where one's feelings towards something isn't valid unless it fits into jurisprudence, but okay.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was hilarious

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[zakkie]

Kak, boet.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[epyT-R]

I think your comment was born out of lack of a sense of humor. It is highly unlikely she thinks white people cannot get aids. Whether she's an idiot or not is irrelevant, because taking offense over stupid shit all the time is even more idiotic...doing it to the point where governments are decree such expression illegal, or where employers feel compelled to fire, is fucking brain dead.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, Tumblr, the fucking assholes who are trying their damnedest to set trans rights back to the stone age. Social justice thugs are nothing but the very worst conservative stereotype with different packaging.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Had Obama been any other President he would have lost in shame. Yet he won.

Are you seriously saying Obama won *because* he was black?

There have been lots of black people in the history of America that were not able to pull of being elected president by virtue of being black.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[cyberchondriac]

While I'm not familiar with this particular case, and so I'm not commenting on this specific incident, the problem is how quick somebody is to label someone a "racist" these days, half the time without even understanding what the term originally meant (believing your race is superior to all others, or hatred of an entire race, not that one other particular race may collectivity have a fault - that's stereotyping).
It's the people who are butthurt and offended by every small thing (or act like to fit in) that reduce the credibility and impact of criticism of racism when it's valid.
Seems like most people out there screaming "racist" and "homophobe" at the top of their lungs are blanket-labeling people from just one or two statements, as a knee-jerk reaction, ( I see it here all the time) and ironically, sometimes they're more hate-filled and intolerant than the people they're attacking. It's gotten very chic these days to label people based on very little evidence. This only inflames tensions.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I don't think anything can be *objectively* offensive.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was anyone actually offended by her remark?
Or do people just like being outraged?

The truth is far more sinister than you probably imagine.

The most evil people on the face of the earth are those who pretend to
only be good but are in reality vicious vengeful people who consistently do
harmful things to their fellow man yet manage to retain their image as
good and decent people. These are the very sort of people who acted like
the tweet Sacco made was justification for her dismissal.

I'd trust a hardened prison inmate more than I'd trust the typical churchgoer,
because those who pretend to be good are the ones who will hurt you for no
apparent reason when you least expect it. In contrast, the convict won't fuck with
you if you have not given him a reason to do so.

These ideas were discussed in a book which did not receive nearly the acclaim it
deserved. The book is "People of the Lie" and it was written by the same author who
wrote "The Road Less Traveled". If you are interested in understanding your fellow
man such that you have a better idea of what to expect from your so-called friends
and good neighbors, read the book, and come away with a new view of humanity.

.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how quickly the defenders of racism come out of the woodwork. A bit more subtle than the pointy white hoods it it's still with us, as your post demonstrates.

I hope a gang mugs you and leaves you paralyzed, you sanctimonious
holier-than-thou piece of self-righteous shit.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well....he probably did. And Bush probably won because of who his father was.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Adrian Lopez]

Well there is this thing in legal theory called "standing".

It's a good thing we don't need standing to express ourselves in public.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Adrian Lopez]

Humans get a dopamine boostfrom being outraged and feeling morally superior.

I bet it's good to know you are better than all those people.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I havent seen nor heard her comments, so I cannot say if it was racism or not but what does offend me is these PR Twonks still believe that they can resort to their first play in their guide book an insincere apology.

It might be graceless but why accept a forced apology if it does nothing to redress the hurt it may have inflicted.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many big words that somehow confirm what GP said.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Mashiki]

Are you seriously saying Obama won *because* he was black?

Considering key parts of his campaign rolled around it, and there's no shortage of to this day "If you're against any part of whatever Obama is doing, you're a racist."

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you totally missed the angry, outraged mob. That was last weekend.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[jcrb]

This is daft, the hardened prison inmate is almost 100% certain to view you as prey and to happily exploit your trust. Your understanding of people is simply backward, the convict *will* fuck with you if he wants to, you need not "give him a reason to". Your average church goer on the other hand almost certainly needs to be given a reason to care about you. You may not find acceptable the things that would cause the church goer to take an interest in you. But if you believe that as long as you do nothing to attract their attention you are safe from the average convict you are dangerously deluded.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[couchslug]

If it weren't fun to ratpack and destroy people of enemy ideologies, it wouldn't happen.

In particular, stupid people who publicly expose themselves through vanity use of social media are seen as lulzworthy targets.

I find her fate amusing.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Seumas]

When I read her comment, I didn't see what the big deal was. It clearly seemed intentionally sarcastic. Making a quip about how something won't impact you, because you're white to contrast with the reality of a thing not being constrained by race. In fact, I don't see how a single person on the planet would ever have any context in which to make the statement she did without doing so sarcastically.

More importantly, who gives a fucking shit about this People Magazine quality bullshit?

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Seumas]

Obama won for the same reason Bush won again. Because the population is fucking stupid. Stupidity knows no color or ethnicity.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with feeling superior to a racist?

The fact of the matter is that Racism is a belief that someone is inferior simply because of their ethnicity. Just because you make a joke about race, even a bad one, doesn't make you an actual Racist.

The problem here is that she wasn't called a Racist just because of the joke- it was because she is WHITE and made that joke. There's a double standard at work here- it's only OK to make racially charged comments if you are of that race, or in some cases of another "minority" race which has taken a lot of shit recently. Unless the comments are about White people, in which case it's ok to make all the racist jokes you want and nobody will call you out on it.

Don't get me wrong, as a PR figure she certainly deserved to be called out and fired for being a stupid loud-mouthed bitch. But most of the people claiming moral outrage are, in reality, simply being hypocrites.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[spire3661]

"yet because that monitoring does not directly harm me, the powers that be have maneuvered the law to make blatant violations of the law untouchable."

Every citizen of the USA has standing against the NSA.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't heard much white SA bring it up because any mention of her drags down their entire race. According to Zac_R's tweets, JS's dad raised her in US because SA is too racist. As seen in another tweet: he could take the girl out of the South, but he couldn't take the South out of the girl. So her actions imply white SA are inherently racist.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Immerman]

You are quite right, that is a much better way to phrase it. From the Wikipedia the second traditional case where you have standing is

2. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.

But it's been over a century since such expansive rules of standing were reliably honored by the US courts.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[superwiz]

Are you seriously saying Obama won *because* he was black?

That is such a loaded piece of crap question and anyone who asks it is an ass hole. I am sorry tired of being polite to people who are obviously doing nothing but insulting those who do not deserve insulting and who think that their passive aggressive eloquence somehow makes it ok. You know -- people like you. But hey, what the hell? It's Christmas. So I'll actually address your idiocy as if it came from an actual thinking human being rather than a drone that you are.

No, Obama being black was by no means the sole reason he was elected. Nor did my comment suggest anything of the kind. Events have multiple consequences. In much the same way, they have multiple contributing factors (multiple outputs AND multiple inputs if you want to think of life as information processing). Had he not be been black, that contributing element would not be present as a contributing factor in his election. Given that under the circumstances under which he ran most white Presidents would have lost, a conclusion must be drawn that being black helped his chances rather than diminish them.

There have been lots of black people in the history of America that were not able to pull of being elected president by virtue of being black.

No shit, Sherlock. Sky is still blue, right? You are as dumb as everyone who posts the answer "just google it" to every question in a forum... you know the forums... the ones whose questions come as search results when you google... I love finding half of my google searches pointing to questions which have a random "just google it" answer from a twerp like you.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[superwiz]

That kind of misses the point... If we were seeing blacks as lacking merit (if we were racist), being black would have diminished Obama's chances. Instead, it increased his chances. So the only conclusion that can be drawn is that we are fond of blacks. You can argue that it was a guilt vote, but that would be the reason for why we have a fondness for a certain cross-section of the population. It would not be a justification for dismissing that fondness as non-existing.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Considering key parts of his campaign rolled around it

Considering that he's the first US president who wasn't 100% white, I think it's fairly safe to say that in general being black does not help your chances of being president.

I am not denying that his being black helped get him some votes (especially among black people), but what I am saying is that it actually probably cost him a lot more votes. Even if every black person voted for him, that's only about 13% of the population (who already traditionally vote democrat). There are probably at least as many, if not more, people that voted against him because he was black.

and there's no shortage of to this day "If you're against any part of whatever Obama is doing, you're a racist."

We live in a country of 300 million people. For just about any crazy statement, you can probably find at least 50 people willing to say it on TV.

There are people out there who will say that anybody opposed to anything Obama wants is racist. There are also people out there (many of the legislators), who will refuse to support anything Obama supports just to be in opposition to Obama. I think it probably has to do more with politics than racism, but for some of those detractors, the animosity probably stems from racism. I don't know what percentage, but it's probably bigger than 0 and smaller than 100.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you believe that as long as you do nothing to attract their attention you are safe from the average convict you are dangerously deluded.

The difference between you and me is that you IMAGINE you know what you are talking about
despite your lack of personal experience, and I KNOW what I am talking about because I have
been in prison.

What the convict knows that you don't is that if he fucks with the wrong person they might just
kill him while he is sleeping. In the world outside prison, people have protection which allows them
to act with impunity all too often. In prison most people behave better than they would on the street,
in no small part because if they fuck with the wrong person there is NO escape and there WILL be
consequences.

What is it with you British people who think you know everything despite the fact that you have no
had actual experience ? What's next, would you tell me how to road race a motorcycle though you have
never done it ? Or perhaps you'll give a mother some advice on child birth though you are not female ?

In other words, sod off, ya fookin empty-headed wanker.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that things like racism, sexism, anti-atheism, etc. don't just harm the person saying them, they contribute to a tapestry of cultural biases which harms every member of the target group

This kind of entitled bullshit needs to stop. Nobody is being harmed, and you don't have any kind of right to not be offended. If you want to fight against cultural biases then fine, but you need to find some way to do that other than telling people to quit speaking words you don't like to hear.

Every young gay person who hears "That's gay" used as an insult will be that much more uncomfortable with their sexuality

If hearing someone say that makes you uncomfortable in your sexuality, then YOU have got some serious problems and should seek professional help. The term "gay" was intentionally co-opted by the Pride movement, and they've been trying to force the rest of society to accept that "gay" means "homosexual" ever since. Which is fine, you've succeeded in ADDING that definition to the word. But language is fluid and not subject to your delicate sensibilities, and the word ALSO means "something silly, stupid, or foolish". Yes, it's a shocker- words can have more than one meaning! Just like the word "fag" has a completely different meaning in the UK than it does in the US.

Re: Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately Sacco has highlighted the HIV problem among blacks. After decades of education that whites have successfully integrated into personal sexual behavior, blacks still act like it's 1980 and everyone is still in the dark about what causes this plague.

And as such this is a good example of Darwin's Principles of Evolution in action.

One set of humans adapts successfully to environmental changes and the other set
does not.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama won because Hillary is a woman. The voters could at least in principle expect Michelle to provide some moderation to Barack's actions (i.e. "defer to better half"). But after what Bill did while he was President, there was no chance he would be able to moderate Hillary.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[superwiz]

the animosity probably stems from racism

No, it stems from being played for fools. The bull shit he is selling is significantly more steaming than anything that came out Bush. Bush took an ambiguity and claimed certainty. And that caused quite a bit of discontent. Obama tells plain lies. He knows he is lying. Everyone else knows he is lying. He breaks laws left and right and doesn't even bother with the legal process... oh, and that's just on top of his obvious lies. And yet those who criticism him are met with derision. THAT is the reason for the animosity.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[fahrbot-bot]

I don't think anything can be *objectively* offensive.

I would usually agree.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

If one can't do this, such as would be the case with a whiny, anonymous person at a keyboard, then one doesn't have standing and hence, the judge can tell them to shut up and get lost.

What does any of this have to do with the law or a judge? It's generally not illegal in the US to make racist statements, but that doesn't mean people can't react negatively to them. That's the whole point of this recent Duck Dynasty crap - the guy can say what he wants, but he has to live with the consequences of his words.

I think this is an excellent way to deal with the endless, useless complaints of racism for behavior and opinions that harms no one aside possibly from the instigator.

And to try to argue that a person shouldn't speak out against racism just because they aren't of that affected race is just absurd. If you don't feel like you should be able speak out against a person attacking someone else you are either almost as bad as that person, or just a pussy. Luckily not everyone has opinions like yours or there never would have been a Civil Rights movement in the first place.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

what I actually I said was:

for *some* of those detractors, the animosity probably stems from racism.

I didn't think this was even up for debate that *some* people are racist.

And yet those who criticism him are met with derision

You would prefer people be prohibited from deriding you? I would suggest you grow some thicker skin if you want to participate in a public forum.

Re: Why so much butthurt?

[malkavian]

Well, the most blatant occurrence of racism I've come across in recent years was in a council meeting in Bristol, UK... An Asian councillor was told in open session that she was "a coconut" (meaning brown on the outside, but white on the inside). This was applied in a very derogatory context. This was said on the record by another councillor.. You'd think they'd be reprimanded at the very least but no.. Entirely swept under the carpet, until the recipient of the slur called for an investigation into why a blatantly show of racism wasn't handled.
When questioned in the investigation why the offending councillor had made a racist comment on the record, she replied "I can't be racist, because I'm black.".
This does kind of point out what gets many people riled up; if you have a non-white skin, then it's strongly implied by many that the only part of racism they play a part in is as a victim, never as an attacker. This is blatantly untrue; whatever colour of skin you have, you're human, and that carries (in most, if not all cases), a bias towards the similar that's been wired into us over thousands (if not millions) of years. We're growing up as a species and overcoming that now, but it's entirely pointless to believe racism isn't universal. It is.

The point of all this though us that the original tweet was plain stupid (the implication that she couldn't get AIDS in Africa because she was white). Factually wrong, which makes her look stupid, and I. Pretty poor taste. The kind of thing that you can look at and say "you tit". Then you get in with life, and deal with real issues.

However, this mob frenzy every time there's even a whiff of the word "racism" or similar is what the author of the article is calling out as being thuggish and oppressive, and distinctly worrying.

There is no "right to be a bit of a dick", and when we are (face it, everyone is a dick sometimes; you, me, and everyone we know). Mostly, it's a momentary lapse in judgement, or an overreaction when we're emotionally slightly compromised..
However, it takes a monumentally idiotic, callous and narrow minded person to bay for blood and hound them out of a job, threaten them, harrass them and so on; all responses which seem "politically acceptable" these days.

That tacit acceptance of gross overreaction is just plain scary. It's the same conditioned reflex you see in religious zealots calling holy war because someone dared draw a picture of their prophet, or take the name of their deity in vain, or believe that science is wrong because it says something different to their couple of thousand year old holy writings.

This kind of behaviour is way beyond being a bit of a dick, and puts you squarely in the "scary wack job" category. The one that people get nervous around when they pick up the cutlery.

It's not about "defending racism" or such, it's about admitting we all have a lot of growing up to do.. Especially collectively as a species.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[scott9693]

I don't know much about the subject, but I always thought it was more about wealth and less about culture. Poverty stricken (more likely native Africans) people don't have much entertainment, so sex is a way to pass the time.
Don't use condoms due to availability, or Catholics in their ears saying you will go to hell if you use a condom.
As you mention, rape & myths play a big role in infection rates too, but that can be due lower police resources in poverty stricken areas.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

a businessman with a very clear understanding of how to loot destabilizing businesses

FTFY.

And that businessman lost not because of "pity" for Obama, but because he went too far right to try to win a completely dysfunctional Republican primary, and then was stuck with either staying where he was and getting crushed or explaining how he wasn't stating his real opinions before, losing all credibility - and getting crushed. He lost the race before it even started.

And it's a lot easier to destroy an economy than fix it. But looking at the current economic indicators we're finally starting to undo the Bush disaster...

Unemployment 4 year low: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3
GDP up over 4% in Q3: http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2013/12/20/us-gdp-grew-4-1-in-third-quarter-more-than-previously-estimated/
Stock market record high: http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/13/investing/stocks-markets/

You Republican middle class sheeple are so amazing in your loyalties. Your upper class overlords who have been making hand over fist in the market for the last 4 years must be feeding you an extra scoop of gruel in your dinner along with their usual lies about "the awful state of the economy"...

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

That is such a loaded piece of crap question and anyone who asks it is an ass hole. I am sorry tired of being polite to people who are obviously doing nothing but insulting those who do not deserve insulting and who think that their passive aggressive eloquence somehow makes it ok

I am flattered that you think I'm eloquent.

No, Obama being black was by no means the sole reason he was elected. Nor did my comment suggest anything of the kind.

It suggested that he received an advantage from being black, without any explanation.

Events have multiple consequences. In much the same way, they have multiple contributing factors (multiple outputs AND multiple inputs if you want to think of life as information processing). Had he not be been black, that contributing element would not be present as a contributing factor in his election.

Of all these many contributing factors, the only one you mentioned initially is Obama being black. I'm already of the opinion that this is a complicated system with many contributing factors and consequences. I am also of the opinion that knowing exactly which contributing factors lead to which consequences, and how things would have turned out under different circumstances is a pretty hard thing to do, if not impossible. It is certainly impossible to verify what would have happened according to you in an objective way.

Given that under the circumstances under which he ran most white Presidents would have lost, a conclusion must be drawn that being black helped his chances rather than diminish them.

I am going to pretend that you have a crystal ball, and that it is even possible for you to know something like what would have happened if Obama was white or if a white candidate ran in his place and ask...

What were those circumstances that allowed Obama's blackness to help him win, where most white presidents would have lost?

You are as dumb as everyone who posts the answer "just google it" to every question in a forum... you know the forums... the ones whose questions come as search results when you google... I love finding half of my google searches pointing to questions which have a random "just google it" answer from a twerp like you.

Did someone traumatize you by telling you to google something? Holy shit you've got problems.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[superwiz]

I didn't think this was even up for debate that *some* people are racist.

The fact that you thought it important enough to bring it up states that you believed it to be a significant number of his opposition. And that is deeply offensive. Calling decent people (and you are doing that, make no mistake about it) is obnoxious to the core. Those innocent of the charges, don't know how to defend themselves simply because it's not something on their minds. You are trying to instill in them an original sin -- guilt through actions they didn't take. One doesn't easily know how to defend against that. It takes quite a bit of skill and most people aren't there. And you and the scum like you are trying to take advantage of that in order to get people to concede political points which they should not be conceding. The points on which they are absolutely correct. It's not just an ad hominem attack. It is an ad hominem that demands that a person prove his innocence or be deemed guilty. It is pernicious and vile.

You would prefer people be prohibited from deriding you? I would suggest you grow some thicker skin if you want to participate in a public forum.

Yeah, thanks! You don't get to make that suggestion anymore. You've ran out of all the chances and all the patience. You've burned those bridges. Civility is not what you get to request when being called on a lie and doubling down.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[khallow]

The problem is that things like racism, sexism, anti-atheism, etc. don't just harm the person saying them, they contribute to a tapestry of cultural biases which harms every member of the target group.

How about this little witch hunt? All just because someone said something naughty on Twitter? That's why I think standing is relevant here. There's a whole lot of people with zero stake making terribly bad judgments and causing considerable harm.

one comment can be shrugged off, thousands a year, not so much.

I assure you that thousands of comments don't take thousands of shrugs to shrug off.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Runaway1956]

I'm waiting for that, as well. Personally, I know of several people who have been banned from "discussion" sites, for having expressed politically incorrect views. Primary among them, are at least 20 people who have been banned from Sodahead. (I haven't actually counted them, and can't go back to count now, because Sodahaed censors out both the comments AND the users whom they have banned. The accounts are gone, and unsearchable, completely deleted.)

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[khallow]

It might be graceless but why accept a forced apology if it does nothing to redress the hurt it may have inflicted.

No offense to the many idiots who think this is a big deal, but I think an apology is in line with the non-existent harm committed.

Now, this might just be the latest in a line of problems and infractions with this employee, so I don't know if the firing is warranted or not. But if it was an isolated event (well, the employee had posted a bunch of impolitic Twitters, but I mean here that the employee hasn't been warned about this sort of thing before) and not part of some pattern of being a problem for the employer, then I would give the employee another chance.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Runaway1956]

Being black was a large part of what got Obama elected.

Being liberal is another large part of what got Obama elected.

Being approved by the Powers That Be was the deciding factor.

Being young, healthy, and seemingly attractive to a lot of females didn't hurt him.

Being a charismatic speaker helped a lot.

You may pretend that race wasn't a factor in his being elected, but that makes you just as racist as any of the birthers and others who hate him for being black. Be honest with yourself, and admit that race played a part in Obama's career. Go on, admit that blacks can be just as racist as any skinhead White Supremacist - it will be good for you soul.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[khallow]

What does any of this have to do with the law or a judge?

Analogy. They had to deal with this sort of crap in law and they solved the problem by throwing it out of court.

And to try to argue that a person shouldn't speak out against racism just because they aren't of that affected race is just absurd.

First, it's worth noting that the racism witch hunt just another form of ugly bigotry, just like racism. As long as those pointless accusations of racism aren't directed at me, I don't really care except to remind people that they're being hypocritical idiots.

Luckily not everyone has opinions like yours or there never would have been a Civil Rights movement in the first place.

Because that's how Jim Crow laws started in the 1870s. Slippery slope arguments work only when there actually is a slippery slope.

Re: Why so much butthurt?

[Runaway1956]

Great post, Malkavian. It should be modded to the sky, but no one with mod points seems to be applying them.

Re: Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually lol'd

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[khallow]

That a lame, racist comment was made by a PR executive and created a media firestorm should surprise exactly no one.

I just wonder why people can't see that this is a really terrible way to "cause social change"? It's just a shuffling around of who's a legitimate target of bigotry. My view is that bigots are just as much human as anyone else. It should be just as wrong to discriminate against someone merely because they exhibit common human flaws like bigotry as the color of their skin.

This should especially be true for the people who believe that people by their inherent nature are bigoted. Why ostracize someone for exhibiting human behavior that alleged can't be eliminated?

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I didn't say race wasn't a factor.

It clearly was a factor for many people. There were many people for which Obama's blackness was the deciding factor in their vote. For some people it resulted in a vote for Obama, for some against.

What I am saying is that I don't think his blackness on average was a deciding factor (i.e. many of the the votes for and against based on blackness cancel out), and just based on the numbers of black presidents we've had in the past, I am assuming being black actually hurt him on average.

Be honest with yourself, and admit that race played a part in Obama's career.

Race plays a part in all aspects of everyone's life for both good and bad.

Go on, admit that blacks can be just as racist as any skinhead White Supremacist - it will be good for you soul.

I was not aware that anything I said would lead anyone to believe I don;t think black people can be racist.

If you followed this thread you'd see that I said that many black people voted for Obama *because* he was black.

Being liberal is another large part of what got Obama elected.

Being liberal doesn't get you elected. Lots of liberal people lose elections and lots of conservative people win elections. This country is split almost 50/50 between liberal and conservative voters.

Being approved by the Powers That Be was the deciding factor.

Being young, healthy, and seemingly attractive to a lot of females didn't hurt him.

Being a charismatic speaker helped a lot.

That's where I would agree with you

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[superwiz]

I am flattered that you think I'm eloquent.

You shouldn't be. As I pointed out, it is a candy wrap around the shit candy that is your passive aggressive bull shit.

It suggested that he received an advantage from being black, without any explanation.

That's is an outrageous lie. I gave an explanation by drawing a parallel to what would happen to a non-black President under similar circumstances.

I am going to pretend that you have a crystal ball

Oh, you don't know because it's too hypothetical? That's your argument? Obama himself drew a scenario (before being elected to his 1st term) of what would happen if the economic situation were as dire as it ended up being at the end of his 1st term. In his own scenario, he admitted that if any President did as poor a job as he ended up doing, he would have lost. Doesn't take crystal ball to be aware of history.

It is certainly impossible to verify what would have happened according to you in an objective way.

Aha. Doesn't need to. Your accusation of racism, your claim that it is mainstream... It's utter crap. Cultural trends are not discoverable via absolute arguments. They are discoverable only through statistical evidence. And statistical evidence points to Obama having an advantage from being black rather than having his chances diminished. That's a fact. Anyone who is offended by facts, offends those of us who are sane.

What were those circumstances that allowed Obama's blackness to help him win, where most white presidents would have lost?

The fact that enough voters were willing to vote for a black President even if they would have voted for the other guy had both of the candidates been white.

Did someone traumatize you by telling you to google something? Holy shit you've got problems.

You don't deserve civility. Don't blame it on others when you don't get it. It's you. The treatment you get is the result of what you say. It's just that sane people have been civil to you and not treating you the way you really deserve to be treated for a long time now. It's over. I was giving an example of another twerp who thinks that his snide makes him clever. You are not clever.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

The fact that you thought it important enough to bring it up states that you believed it to be a significant number of his opposition

Yes a significant number of people are racist. This is the claim I am making. You can find it deeply offensive if you want. That's your problem to deal with. It's not my job to be politically correct to spare your hurt feelings.

You don't get to make that suggestion anymore

Stop me.

GROW SOME THICKER SKIN!

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[superwiz]

a businessman with a very clear understanding of how to loot destabilizing businesses

No, stabilize. Don't really need to address the rest of anonymous troll. The quote with bull shit removed is

a businessman with a very clear understanding of how to stabilize a destabilizing businesses

Thanks for lying, ass hole.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[superwiz]

It's not my job to be politically correct to spare your hurt feelings.

No, not at all. But it's also not your prerogative to spew crap and not be called on it just because you think it's crap de jour.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[superwiz]

Stop me.

Pointing out that you and your ilk no longer deserve civility is enough. Majority of people are not racist. Saying otherwise is not offensive because it hurts. It's offensive because insults our intelligence.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Immerman]

First off do you honestly think anyone would have started use phrases such as "that's gay", or "bugger", or "fag" or "cocksucker" as slurs if not for the homosexual connotations? They are all implicit statements that there's something wrong with being gay, and when coined you'd better believe they were *explicitly* homophobic. I mean come on - without the homosexual connotations "that's gay" would mean "that's an immorally good time", hardly an insult in most contexts. And I don't hear anyone complaining about the British smoking a fag, they complain about people being called fag as an insult. Just as they would complain if you called a black man a nigger. Not because the word has some magical power to do harm, but because it's a word that acquired a deeply insulting and meaning, and is being used to suggest that the man is less worthy of respect for no reason other than the color of his skin.

The fact is that words *do* cause damage, especially to young developing minds. If you are routinely told you are a worthless piece of shit the entire time you're growing up you are probably going to start believing it. Yes, counseling may help, but you'll probably never be as well-adjusted as someone who didn't grow up with that kind of abuse. Plus that option isn't available to everyone, especially children and the poor, and it doesn't give a free pass to the person dishing out such abuse. Just because I can fix my windows doesn't mean it's okay for you to smash them, and broken windows are far cheaper and easier to fix than damaged minds.

You can't realistically expect a child who spent the first 12 years of their life hearing and using using homophobic insults not to draw the conclusion that there is something wrong with being homosexual. And you can't realistically expect a young teen coming to terms with the confusing and unsettling changes that are rampaging through their body, and who suddenly discovers that they are in fact gay, to calmly and rationally realize that the first 12 years of homophobic cultural indoctrination were bullshit and get on with embracing their sexuality like their straight friends are doing. Nor can you realistically expect their straight peers, who have been similarly indoctrinated that gay=bad, not to shun them, at best.

And that's the real problem with such language - it indoctrinates the next generation that certain groups are less worthy of respect, subhuman even, and that's something that plays right into our most destructive tribal instincts. Someday we'll hopefully live in a world where nobody is disrespected for things beyond their control, and the words will be just words, but we've still got a long way to go to get there, and until then using divisionist slurs only makes progress towards that ideal all the more difficult. And what exactly does it contribute to society that it should be considered acceptable despite the damage it does? You can just as easily say "That's stupid" if that's what you really mean.

As for the word, actually "being gay" started gaining implications of living a loose and immoral life during the 17th century. In the 19th century "gay" referred to a female prostitute, and "a gay man" to a man who slept with lots of women, often prostitutes. In the 1920s and 30s it started gaining homosexual implications as well. By 1955 it had largely acquired it's current meaning, yes, driven in part by gay men adopting it as a less clinical and sterile alternative to "homosexual", but still well before the Pride movement began.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[sumdumass]

Eugenics has played a large role in Africa even down to the last couple decades when tribes were sterilized by chemicals that could be absorbed through the skin in order to purge their bloodlines. You also had reports of women seeking AIDs treatment being forcibly sterilized and secretly sterilized in Africa in order to "stop the spread" of HIV. Having children is an important part of African culture and often having multiple fathers is common.

As for the Catholics comments on condoms, the Pope always made the comment about a monogamous relationship being the best protection against AIDS and HIV. But I do not remember the Catholics offering advice on the subject, only replying to questions posed by reporters. I could be wrong though as their official stance on condoms for a long time was a forbidden forms of birth control. But there is no shortage of condoms in Africa, they are handed out like candy at Halloween almost. Almost any health organization will give them to you, they are free in bathrooms and quite a few other places like work and and government buildings.

Sex is more of a culture thing in Africa then wealth or lack of. They are sort of like the original free love in that a lot of tribal roles weren't that of the typical man and wife lifestyle. The woman was free and often encouraged to have multiple sex partners and the males often where encourages to have sex a lot too. This was probably born out of necessity when so many things could take the life of children easily like diseases and wild animals or even the lack of nutrition that encouraging refilling of the population anyway possible was a necessity for survival.

Now, what you seem to understand may be true in western cultures, but we are talking about a specific set of people who face problems we have long put behind us. And as some of those problems was with the western notions of fixing them coming along side of abusing the natives, thus making a lot of Africans suspicious of western ideals and solutions. You probably cannot compare an African American culturally wise with an African. It would be sort of like comparing an American Indian with someone from India. There might be similarities but they are completely different. In fact, most Africans are so different then US African Americans, they are often set aside and shunned in African American communities when they immigrate to the US. OF course there are exceptions.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[frrrp]

fiannaFailMan: Funny how quickly the defenders of racism come out of the woodwork. A bit more subtle than the pointy white hoods it it's still with us, as your post demonstrates.

What complete and utter bollocks. The hysteria mill for nonsense like this is almost exclusively driven by pudgy, pink, extremely entitled, privileged, middle-class NORTH AMERICANS. Those that have poisoned liberalism and made it look *exactly* like the parody liberalism as pushed on Fox News by the likes of Glen Beck and Ann Coulter. These are people who no longer have genuine grievances to fight the righteous fight for, so they clutch at trivia - any life destroyed is a proudly claimed as a shrunken head trophy, no trivia is to small to shriek about. Welcome to the jungle of the Social Justice Warrior. Welcome to the Colosseum. http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2013/12/because-lying-and-resenting-is-what-angels-do.html

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the same AC, but as a homosexual, I complain about people like you trying to censor other people's speech. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me"? If someone wants to call me a "happy bundle of sticks"*, they can go right ahead. Doesn't matter to me one lick, as long as it does not become physical.

Yes, if everyone around a child is calling them worthless, it will have a negative impact on that child. But the answer isn't to try and shield them, it is to teach them how to fight back (figuratively speaking). Because you cannot shield them forever.

*When I was in middle school, I got picked on, called homosexual slurs. One day, when someone called me a "gay fag", I turned around and ask "I'm a happy bundle of sticks?" Confused the hell out of the insulter. That is how you deal with insults.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Immerman]

Eh, sounds like this particular witch hunt was based on a badly phrased joke targeted at whites. Or perhaps targeted at the stupid, vicious trend of infected black men raping black women hoping for a magical cure. Frankly I could care less, witch hunts never end justly and I do my best not to partake. This conversation thread though has moved on to the more general problem of derogatory -isms, and that is a dialog worth joining.

No you're absolutely right - thousands of comments can be tuned out with impunity by a mature mind convinced of its own truth. An uncertain developing mind though? One desperately trying to figure out the rules of its society and their place within it? Not so much. And that's the biggest problem with slurs - they get thrown around like they're "just words", but every time a child of any group hears them that's one more vote in their world-view that "group X" is somehow less worthy of respect and empathy. And among less-than-absolutely-certain adults as well, which is realistically probably most of them. If everyone in your social group is slinging around slurs odds are you will start to do so as well, just to fit in. And odds are that once you start throwing around slurs you'll ever-so-slowly start believing them, at least a little. That's just how the human mind appears to work.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Immerman]

Also worth mentioning - just because a gay/minority/female person is confident in their self-worth that doesn't mean that anger and resentment isn't fed every time someone verbally spits in their face, and such things rarely breed happy outcomes.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Immerman]

Well to start with the whole sticks and stones things is a complete lie - words can strike far deeper than stones, and damage to the mind can be far slower and more difficult to heal. Plus it generally takes time and experience to learn to armor ourselves against them, and if that armor gets used regularly it can take even longer to learn how to let it down again so you can truly connect with others

Also note that my comments are largely targetting slurs which are not necessarily even aimed at specifically gays, but rather are equating homosexualiy and some sort of "wrongness".

And believe it or not I largely agree with you as to the proper response to dealing with insults, I got my share of "nerd" and "freak" insults as a child, and turned them in much the say way. Didn't do anything to help my sense of isolation from the masses, but it mostly got the bullies off my back.

For censorship though... well I strongly support your right to say whatever you want, but I will use my own right to verbally slap down the hatemongers and loonies who seek to darken my world. I do not deny you your right to speak, but if you're verbally pissing in my living room I will sure as hell raise my voice against yours. And when you get right down to it our culture is essentially the oldest, most democratic, and most powerful technology our race has developed. It shapes us all, and we in turn shape it. Those who spread hate and intolerance are acting to create a culture where your admission could get you lynched, and I won't stand by and quietly let it happen, I have my own ideas as to what the future should look like, and it doesn't involve a bunch of self-important assholes lynching anyone who's different than them. We've been there as a species, many times in many different flavors, and precious little good came from any of it. It's time to move on.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem begins when your sanctimonious mob reaction to an issue you neither actively do anything about or are affected by, permanently ruins the life and career of another person.

This punishment, meted by those with the "correct" view du jour, far far exceeds the crime of a stupid joke.

Im sure it feels good, really good to ruin someone's life when they stupidly either don't hold your view or make some stupid alcohol fueled remark.

But I don't know that feeling. You do.

Posting as AC via Tor to avoid having my career ruined, in case someone is offended by the above comment.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[khallow]

An uncertain developing mind though?

Well, a lot of people never figure it out. It's not my problem to fix. My view is that it's better to just ignore this non-problem than to coddle yet more people who aren't mature enough to handle insults.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Pointing out that you and your ilk no longer deserve civility is enough. Majority of people are not racist. Saying otherwise is not offensive because it hurts. It's offensive because insults our intelligence.

I never said the majority of people are racist. You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said *some* people are racist. Are you retarded or something?

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I can say whatever I want, and you can say whatever you want. I never claimed any other different system does or should exist.

You are perfectly free to spout whatever nonsensical garbage you want. I am choosing to try to have a discussion as adults, but you don't seem to want to do that. It seems you'd rather just ramble like a crazy person, and argue against things I never said.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

That's is an outrageous lie. I gave an explanation by drawing a parallel to what would happen to a non-black President under similar circumstances.

Repeating an assertion is not the same as an explanation (much less a coherent one). If I claim that "GW Bush was actually a secret Hindu", and you ask for an explanation of why I would come to that conclusion, and I say "I already explained that he's a secret Hindu, you're a liar for saying I didn't provide an explanation", that's not a coherent explanation.

Oh, you don't know because it's too hypothetical? That's your argument? Obama himself drew a scenario (before being elected to his 1st term) of what would happen if the economic situation were as dire as it ended up being at the end of his 1st term. In his own scenario, he admitted that if any President did as poor a job as he ended up doing, he would have lost. Doesn't take crystal ball to be aware of history.

Firstly you need to provide citations, secondly Obama cannot predict alternate futures any better than you can.

The fact that enough voters were willing to vote for a black President even if they would have voted for the other guy had both of the candidates been white.

1. doubt you have proof of this.

2. Even if you did, this doesn't contradict my assertion that this group of people would be cancelled out by the people who would vote against him because he was black.

3. You *do* need a crystal ball to say what *WOULD HAVE* happened under different circumstances.

BTW.

Aha. Doesn't need to. Your accusation of racism, your claim that it is mainstream... It's utter crap. Cultural trends are not discoverable via absolute arguments. They are discoverable only through statistical evidence. And statistical evidence points to Obama having an advantage from being black rather than having his chances diminished. That's a fact. Anyone who is offended by facts, offends those of us who are sane.

My "accusation" was that *some* people are racist, not that it is mainstream. Not to mention that you are also claiming that people voted for Obama based on his race. This is also racism. I believe that voting for Obama because he is black is racism. According to your logic this is very offensive to accuse people of racism. Or is it only offensive to accuse people who oppose Obama racist?

The fact that enough voters were willing to vote for a black President even if they would have voted for the other guy had both of the candidates been white.

Do you have any good evidence at all? Or are you just going to keep repeating it?

You don't deserve civility. Don't blame it on others when you don't get it. It's you. The treatment you get is the result of what you say. It's just that sane people have been civil to you and not treating you the way you really deserve to be treated for a long time now. It's over. I was giving an example of another twerp who thinks that his snide makes him clever. You are not clever.

I wasn't asking you to be civil. Civility is what civil people do. All I did was disagree with you. If all it takes for you to lose your civility is opposition, then I would argue that you are just not a civil person to begin with.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[superwiz]

You are perfectly free to spout whatever nonsensical garbage you want.

What I am saying is not garbage. It's accurate. You are scum. People who try convince us that the perfect decent full of merit society that is the United States is somehow a den of villainy and racism are people who deserve nothing but derision. I am simply letting you have what is due. Not because I have strong feelings on the subject of you as a person, but because that is the correct way to address someone of your ilk.

I am choosing to try to have a discussion as adults,

Yes, but the worst kind of adult. You are trying to promulgate the myth that America is divided along racial lines. You and people who talk like try to create social tensions along race lines. Your rhetoric is divisive and what is worse is that it is patently provably undeniably untrue. Your view has been discredited but you keep clinging to rhetorical devices which were used to promulgate that view when people weren't paying close attention to what was being said. It won't work anymore. Treat people as people rather than as "members of society" or kindly eat shit and die. Merry Christmas.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[superwiz]

I am uncivil to you not out failure to act in a civil manner. I am uncivil to you by design. Incivility is what your merit.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the funny thing. I haven't read very many comments from South Africans, or Africans in general, demonstrating their anger. The majority of the "outrage" seems to be coming from Europeans and North Americans.

Which African news sources have you been following? Clearly you must be following more of them than news sources in North America and Europe, since you've made a comprehensive enough survey to be able to say where the majority of the outrage (or as you put it, "outrage" in sneering quotation marks) is coming from.

Seems.

Look it the fuck up. And Fianna Fail suck balls.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

He said 'some' people are racist. You turned that into 'most' in your brain (a strawman, basically). This makes you, despite having some valid points, a dick.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a comedian had said what she said on a stage, none of this would have happened. At worst the joke would have fallen flat and people wouldn't have laughed at it. She thought she was being witty/clever by making light of an intensely depressing situation and purposefully misconstruing a factual statistic. It wasn't a racist comment, and it didn't give any insight to some kind of deep seated "subconscious racism." If anything it demonstrated a consciousness and awareness of racism in culture to make that kind of joke.

It was a joke in poor taste, yes. It wasn't very funny, yes. And without any kind of context, people might not realize it was intended to be a joke. But that's all it was. A bad joke. The fact that it blew up this way is completely insane.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[khallow]

Well to start with the whole sticks and stones things is a complete lie - words can strike far deeper than stones, and damage to the mind can be far slower and more difficult to heal.

I see no evidence for this. I've been called a lot of naughty things and it hasn't bothered me in the least. But I've also rolled a truck. That hurt.

Those who spread hate and intolerance are acting to create a culture where your admission could get you lynched, and I won't stand by and quietly let it happen, I have my own ideas as to what the future should look like, and it doesn't involve a bunch of self-important assholes lynching anyone who's different than them.

I have a suggestion here. Stop being the asshole you're trying to fight.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it not being a joking matter just makes the joke fall flat, it doesn't make the joke racist.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[khallow]

It's a good thing we don't need standing to express ourselves in public.

In case you haven't noticed, this whole discussion started because people had opinions on what someone should say or not say. You can complain about anything in public. I'm merely pointing out a common sense reason for not doing it in this case - namely that there is no one being harmed by the alleged speech.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you an idiot? She pretty obviously doesn't believe being white actually protects her from aids. That was the entire joke she was trying to make.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[jcrb]

Can't imagine what makes you think I am British.

You presume I have no personal experience, you believe that because you have been in prison that your experience speaks to the behavior of the average convict, yet you even admit that they behave better inside than outside and yet it is the out side we talk about.

As for giving a mother advice on child birth without being female, You do know that the vast majority of OBGYN doctors are male right? So the vast majority of women who give birth do so with the advice of men.

I thank you for a wonderful post demonstrating the danger of observational bias in forming peoples belief systems.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[CanHasDIY]

Well to start with the whole sticks and stones things is a complete lie - words can strike far deeper than stones, and damage to the mind can be far slower and more difficult to heal.

I see no evidence for this.

In the context that OP presents, I'm with you - no amount of foul names you can call me equate to any sort of actual injury; In fact, if you come up with a really good one, I'm likely to start laughing and congratulate you on the epic burn. Stop being such pussies, world-at-large.

That's not to say that words don't have the power to incite people to vile acts, however. Just look at what Hitler was able to convince the Germans of.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Runaway1956]

"Being liberal doesn't get you elected. Lots of liberal people lose elections and lots of conservative people win elections. This country is split almost 50/50 between liberal and conservative voters."

Alright, I think I misspoke on that one. Being liberal didn't get him elected, so much as being non-neoconservative and non-Tea party. The "conservative party" today suffers from a myriad of ills, and the liberal party benefits from those ills. Personally, I voted AGAINST the dude with the magic underwear, and a hotline to God. Had there been a Libertarian on the ballot, he would have had my vote. Unfortunately, there were only two candidates for president on my ballot, so that meant either vote for Obama, or leave the space blank. On an electronic ballot, one can't do a write-in candidate.

And, I'll back off a little on the race bit. I do get irritated when *some people* claim that it's all about race, while others claim it has nothing to do with race. Race is, and will remain, a factor for a long, long time to come. Maybe one day, we can get over race - or maybe not. It depends on a lot of things. Sometimes, it seems a lot of blacks sabotage themselves - other times it seems a lot of whites are working even harder to sabotage things.

Maybe someday, race will mean nothing. Today, it means a lot.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[JimSadler]

I certainly hope that almost no one believes any use of torture is ever justified. The same applies to our prison system which tortures people with boredom and want. What do we say when we find, time after time, innocent men who have been locked down for decades and subjected to that nonsense? Is one million dollars a year enough to pay back for the wrong done to those innocent people?

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Firstly (once again), I did not say America is divided along racial lines. I said *some* people are racist.

Secondly, you also implied that people in America are racist because you think people voted for Obama based on skin color.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Unfortunately, there were only two candidates for president on my ballot, so that meant either vote for Obama, or leave the space blank. On an electronic ballot, one can't do a write-in candidate.

That's why I do paper ballot. I wrote in Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

In case you haven't noticed, we are both participating (I use that word loosely), in a political debate in a public forum. We are sending text to each other over the internet and waiting for a response before sending more text for our own response. This in itself is an act of civility. We aren't in a fist fight or a shootout. If you want to be uncivil, you can just stop participating in the discussion.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your lack of tolerance for the intolerant shows a diabolic hatred.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

She was stupid. What's your excuse?

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because in 1880 the contract between states was voided and the United States of America was replaced by a corporation called UNITED STATES. The biggest scam in history. States as they were originally no longer exist at all. It literally is a puppet's play.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[thunderclap]

Was anyone actually offended by her remark? Or do people just like being outraged?

At this point, I think people secretly like being outraged. Look at Phil Robertson. Everyone knew who he was for years on A&E with all the things he said. Then suddenly he admits to something everyone should have known in GQ and its pickforks and torchs time with GLAAD. It makes me wish for a 9.0 Earthquake in LA so I can laugh at their misery just because they do this deliberately. Mean? Yes. Wrong? Very much. Still maybe if they are so busy fixing their own house they will ignore the rest and quit stirring the pot.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[fiannaFailMan]

So only the victims of racism should be offended by racism?

Well there is this thing in legal theory called "standing". The idea crudely is that for things that don't rise to the level of a crime, then one needs to demonstrate that one has been adversely affected by the behavior or activity. If one can't do this, such as would be the case with a whiny, anonymous person at a keyboard, then one doesn't have standing and hence, the judge can tell them to shut up and get lost.

I think this is an excellent way to deal with the endless, useless complaints of racism for behavior and opinions that harms no one aside possibly from the instigator. As a bonus, it gives you more time for your other odious habits.

"Standing" only applies to legal cases. We're not talking about legal cases, we're talking about being offended.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[fiannaFailMan]

Funny how quickly the defenders of racism come out of the woodwork. A bit more subtle than the pointy white hoods it it's still with us, as your post demonstrates.

Funny how quickly legions of irrational idiots bust out the ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies every time someone questions their political correctness-driven groupthink 'outrage.' People questioning these political agitators are not bigots. They know this 'outrage' is purposely designed to get as big a yield as possible regardless of what qualifies as a reasonable response to specific circumstances.

People like you are like that smarmy, overconfident yet easily-needled kid in class who gets picked on all the time because he gets unreasonably upset over nothing. To hide his insecurity, he's always looking for a reason to be 'outraged' at others' behavior so that he has justification to 'smite' them (or get authority to do so). The fact that making offhand comments on the internet results in career suicide suggests a culture wide ailment. The fact that most of this irrationality can be traced right back to the 'social justice' PC crowd's enough-is-never-enough position is not a surprise.

*snore*

You've got some nerve complaining about "ad hominem attacks" in a rant that's completely laced with them. Fuck you, you racist-defending sack of shit.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[fiannaFailMan]

Racist cunt.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[fiannaFailMan]

It was racist. Period.

Suck it up, you racist sack of shit.

Re: Why so much butthurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever considered simply weighing in with your own opinion without attacking someone else? When you contribute to the current climate of intellectual intolerance, you make the world worse for everyone, gay or not! There's no need for big brother when the thought police are already a thriving volunteer organization.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[fiannaFailMan]

I'm not a mind reader, I'm a reader of what this person wrote in public in black and white.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[fiannaFailMan]

Well then it's a fucking stupid analogy, isn't it?

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

If you want to fight against cultural biases then fine, but you need to find some way to do that other than telling people to quit speaking words you don't like to hear.

Telling people to quit speaking words they don't like, is also speech that falls under the first amendment and the general principle of free speech.

Using any kind of coercion to prohibit speech (between individuals or through the government) is anti-free speech, but merely using speech suggesting people should shut up is not anti-free speech, but just more free speech.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

And odds are that once you start throwing around slurs you'll ever-so-slowly start believing them, at least a little. That's just how the human mind appears to work.

common sense != science

Unless you have done some kind of credible scientific study, or can cite one showing that saying racial slurs causes you to believe them, this is simply conjecture.

It may seem plausible to some people. That doesn't mean it's objectively true.

Another (simpler) hypothesis is simply that saying racial slurs is simply an indicator of racism rather than a cause of it.

Correlation is easy. You have to do a lot of work to show causation

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think racist comments certainly have a negative effect. I also think angry mobs that make examples out of unlucky people also have a negative effect.

Maybe Justine got what she deserved, and maybe some extra. When is the angry mob going to get what they deserve?

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Please provide some kind of evidence for this claim that being black helped Obama. You keep saying this as if it needs no explanation.

And saying "Being black helped Obama because if he was white he wouldn't have won" is not an explanation or evidence, it is simply restating your assertion a different way.

Also, if we are "fond of blacks" why didn't any other blacks become president until now? Is this "fondness for blacks" a new thing?

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[superwiz]

I already addressed this point. The fact that he thought it was worthy of mentioning at all demonstrated that he viewed it as a contributing factor that is much larger than a margin of error. And that's a condemnation of a significant portion of the population and of society as a whole. It's a slur which we do not deserve and should not take in stride notwithstanding the fact that he phrased his slur without using an expletive.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[captainlavender]

You don't need legal standing to have been wronged. If someone makes a hurtful remark, you can't prove how it affected you. This is the common internet error of assuming legal = acceptable. Just because you CAN say anything you want, doesn't mean other people are obligated to suffer through it. You won't get arrested, but it's still not appropriate or acceptable. And yes, racism is hurtful -- not "offensive", but genuinely hurtful -- even to those not its targets (though obviously much less so). Listening to talk radio for a month will make you more conservative, so what do you think years of listening to other people's racism does to you or me?

The fact that you think people pointing out racism is just endless, useless complaining says a lot though. Most people who point out racism get derided and dismissed whether their claim is correct or not. Don't buy into that.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[captainlavender]

Do you realize that bigotry hurts other people? We don't say, "oh, hitting your wife is just something people do, I can't discriminate". A part of your identity, unchangeable and NOT harmful to yourself or others, is in no way -- no way AT ALL -- the same as a habit that is hard to break and that actively hurts others. How could you even make that connection? And how did this get upvoted? Shame on anyone who did.

People who think everyone is inherently bigoted are ignoring as much science as a flat-Earther. The idea is simply absurd.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[Immerman]

Let me rephrase:

Every time you say X you believe it a little more, as measured by your future actions. Doesn't really matter what X is, or whether you start out believing it's completely ridiculous. Couldn't cite a study offhand, but I've seen at least a couple.
.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[TsuruchiBrian]

How do you know it's not "Every time you believe something a little more, you also say it" (i.e. that the causal relationship is the other way around), or that there is some completely different 3rd cause that is causing you to both say racist things and believe them?

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[khallow]

Did you actually read what I posted? They faced a almost identical problem (idiots whining about something which can't be demonstrated to actually be harmful). Right there, we have the basis for a good analogy. And they solved the problem by throwing the idiots out of court.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[khallow]

If someone makes a hurtful remark, you can't prove how it affected you.

As I noted in the post that I replied to, this is a very strong indication that the hurtful remark wasn't actually hurtful.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[DFCollet]

I certainly hope that almost no one believes any use of torture is ever justified. The same applies to our prison system which tortures people with boredom and want. What do we say when we find, time after time, innocent men who have been locked down for decades and subjected to that nonsense? Is one million dollars a year enough to pay back for the wrong done to those innocent people?

Almost no one believes any use of torture is ever justified. But what they consider torture will vary depending on who is being tortured.

A person suspected of being a Muslim (that seems to be a crime these days) is most probably somehow connected to a radical group who are somehow connected to a terrorist group and is, therefore, hiding information that is somehow important to my personal safety. Because someone, somewhere, who claimed to be a Muslim, detonated a bomb that killed x number of people.

If the interrogation of such a person requires some intensity reserved only for those who cannot claim protection under a 'civil' law, this is not necessarily torture. It may be just an aggressive search for knowledge.

I don't believe the use of torture, per se, is ever justified. But.... an aggressive search for information when my personal security is at stake?.....

This is the problem with Internet mobs, or mob justice of any kind. The degree or severity of the crime is proportional to my own value system rather than an impartial value system.

While I view the comments to be offensive and insensitive to the extreme, I view some of the comments of Paul Rand on the subject of those 'subjects' who are so ill-advised as to belong to the race of the 'un-intitled', to be even more offensive and insensitive. And before someone gets their self-righteous anger seething, the race of the 'un-intitled' knows no colour, no country, other than the colour green, and the country called 'terra firma'.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[captainlavender]

No no, I'm not talking racism. I'm saying, any emotional damages, of any kind, are unprovable. Hopefully you agree that they still exist. But not everything is admissible. That doesn't make it irrelevant.

Re: Why so much butthurt?

[dboz87]

That is because as soon as the word racism is brought into a discussion, people are afraid of being painted with the broad brush. And if you don't agree with my opinion, it is because you are a racist. (See what I did there?)

Re: Why so much butthurt?

[Runaway1956]

ROFLMAO - as a matter of fact, I AM a racist. No one is as good as my race. There is my family, and my wife's family, and our family. Everyone else are outsiders.

Yep, I see what you did there. I say, fekemall!

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[32771]

No, I wanted to joke about somebody being wrong on the internet.
Also if you have risen to her position as a PR person you know that you don't say the thing she said. According to Pareto 80% of all people are stupid, so ...

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[khallow]

Hopefully you agree that they still exist.

Not at all. In the real world, even emotional damages can be shown to exist. And even when there are emotional damages, it doesn't mean the party whose actions are the trigger for the damages are at fault.

There is such a thing as "come to the nuisance". Just because someone is saying something naughty doesn't mean that you have to seek out their communications and become emotionally damaged by them.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[captainlavender]

So if my child's kindergarten teacher says something horrible to her, and I have no proof and there's no metric to calculate emotional damages, what do I get? Because that's completely unprovable. There is literally nothing except for hearsay. Do you understand that just because you can't prove something in a court of law, doesn't make it untrue? Assholes get away scott free all the time because the people they hurt can't prove it. This is a subcategory of that.

(P.S. The only thing I do that in any way seeks out racism is read slashdot. Other than that, it basically comes to me. By and large, the people affected by racism aren't affected because they seek it out. It's more because racism is an ever-present and unavoidable struggle in their lives.)

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[khallow]

So if my child's kindergarten teacher says something horrible to her, and I have no proof and there's no metric to calculate emotional damages, what do I get?

You should get nothing, unless you can show that your child was harmed by the speech in question. For example, let's suppose that a teacher told a young student in front of the whole class that they were only good for being lynched from a tree.

At that point, there's no evidence of harm to the student though we have a good case for extremely unprofessional behavior of the teacher.

Now, let's look at that student's future behavior. Suddenly, their grades plummeted. And the student now wakes up crying at 4am and suffers from a degree of sleep deprivation according to the physician and psychological problems according to a child therapist.

Finally, testimony from fellow students shows that ever since the teacher's outburst, the student has been mercilessly teased by fellow students using those very same words.

Besides the whole thing was revealed when fellow students tried to hang the victim in question at a neighbor's house before police were called and stated that they got the idea from that teacher's outburst a couple months back and were acting out the scene.

Emotional damage can't be directly measured, but we can see both how the victim changed their behavior and was treated by others who heard the alleged racist speech.

Do you understand that just because you can't prove something in a court of law, doesn't make it untrue?

It would shut you up. But note that nowhere in this thread have I required anyone to provide the level of evidence required for a court trial.

The idea crudely is that for things that don't rise to the level of a crime, then one needs to demonstrate that one has been adversely affected by the behavior or activity.

I'll just note that through this whole discussion, no one has demonstrated that anyone has been harmed by the speech that triggered this whole discussion. It was just an opportunity for some bigoted hypocrites to be sanctimonious.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[fiannaFailMan]

On the one hand you say racism isn't harmful, and in the same breath you talk about a slippery slope into Jim Crow laws.

Screw you.

Re:Why so much butthurt?

[captainlavender]

Poor kids can't afford therapists. Testimony from children is only sometimes admissible because you can make children say anything. Do I have time to take my kid to a physician to diagnose sleep problems? When am I going to do that, if I'm poor, and how exactly does that get paid for? If the kid doesn't tell anyone, if the other kids didn't overhear, if any pone of a thousand things happens, there is no evidence. There is no proof. Of course, those are each only things that might happen. But given how many times a scenario like this has played out, we can assume that they have all happened, given that they all reasonably could. Conclusion: sometimes, yes, there's evidence. Sometimes there is not. The harm is still there. Of course, the entire argument I'm making here is that sometimes harm is still extant/significant even when it is not legally visible, which you apparently aren't even saying, so.... what? Wasn't that your argument?

My point is not that this remark hurt people. I don't care about THIS example at all. My problem is that slashdot is having a discussion about racism and concluding that, if you can't convince a judge something was hurtful, then it wasn't. And since the proxy measures of harm you mentioned (doctors, testimony etc) are all even less available to something on a societal level where each individual act is not harmful so much as their aggregate (kind of like how having one person shun you would suck, but having your entire village shun you would devastate you emotionally), the effects become even more impossible to demonstrate.

I'll just note that, through this whole discussion, I've never once told you something would "shut you up". You're welcome.

Re:Or maybe...

[OverlordQ]

And never get another one again. Unless it's PR spokesperson for the KKK.

So what's the point of TFA/TFS?

[Anonymous Coward]

That if you tweet (blog, comment on TV etc) something incredibly stupid under your professional name, you might find that your tweet went viral?

The author has a couple of good points.

[wcrowe]

The author makes a valid point when he says that there is no evidence that her account was hacked, but what if it were. Indeed. What if your account gets hacked, or someone sets up an account pretending to be you, and then they post something provacative or outrageous. A lot of damage can be done before you even have a chance to respond.

Re:The author has a couple of good points.

[scream at the sky]

The little bit that I have read says that this isn't the first time she's made racially motivated comments.

Just like no one would blink if someone hacked this account and posted sarcastic remarks about, well, anything.

Re:The author has a couple of good points.

[jon3k]

This excuse is used so often on twitter it has become a cliche - "oh no! my account was hacked! i definitely didnt get drunk and claim nazis werent that bad"

Re:The author has a couple of good points.

[skribe]

The AIDS comment was just one of many. Buzzfeed compiled a list.

Re:The author has a couple of good points.

[Seumas]

You mean, like if a politician twitter messaged a picture of their dick and then claimed their account had been "hacked"?

Re:The author has a couple of good points.

[Cederic]

Looks like the random bollocks you'd see on any mid-twenties marketing twat's twitter stream. Self-obsessed, self-unaware, privileged and nowhere near as intelligent as the author thinks.

Maybe a surprise given her PR training, but hardly abnormal.

Ummm...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Was there ever some kind of doubt that this was about watching somebody fuck up and then get hounded mercilessly? Anybody?

People get off on blood sports and mob violence, this is the mostly-legal and really easy flavor.

Re:Ummm...

[girlintraining]

People get off on blood sports and mob violence, this is the mostly-legal and really easy flavor.

Yeah. I'm always a little disappointed when someone doesn't break out the caps lock too. -_- You know shit got real then. On a different note, I don't think a single tweet is a reason to end someone's prospects at doing more than "Would you like fries with that?" no matter how offensive it was.

But on the internet, lives are created and destroyed every day in radically disproportionate ways; This is one of the big problems with our culture eliminating privacy; It makes every mistake you make a lifelong one. Posting a tweet can now carry a level of personal responsibility similar to having unprotected sex and getting pregnant.

Fair? No. But nobody seems to much care that it's happening until they're the ones under the bus.

Re:Ummm...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Your jurisdiction may vary; but getting rid of an unwanted tweet is probably substantially harder than getting rid of an unwanted fetus....

Re:Ummm...

[girlintraining]

Your jurisdiction may vary; but getting rid of an unwanted tweet is probably substantially harder than getting rid of an unwanted fetus....

This is America. Even The Doctor knows to raise his hands and beg us not to shoot when he drops in for a visit. We are rather careless with human life -- between our murder rates, military, religious-controlled government, capital punishment, etc., we do away with a lot of people. Unwanted fetuses though, suspiciously, we have a problem with. A lot of people need to take a car trip to get rid of one, and listen to a doctor lecturing them. We don't have to endure that for any other type of destruction of human life... take what you will from that.

But yeah, deleting an unwanted twit, I mean, tweet, requires an act of Congress and a note from God. Or an injunction served by a wealthy company. Really the same thing in this country...

Re:Ummm...

[TsuruchiBrian]

Our murder rates are nearly the lowest they've been in all of human history... Maybe they are still high compared with what they should be, but they certainly aren't high compared with the past.

Re:Ummm...

[Anonymous Coward]

But yeah, deleting an unwanted twit, I mean, tweet,

No, you have it wrong. The actual post is the tweet, the person posting it is the Twit.

Re:Ummm...

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

On a different note, I don't think a single tweet is a reason to end someone's prospects at doing more than "Would you like fries with that?" no matter how offensive it was.

Are you sure it was only one tweet? From what I hear she had a habit of making stupid tweets.

Re:Ummm...

[Cederic]

of course she did - she was a twitter user. Goes with the territory.

Seriously?

[Kimomaru]

This is really a ./ post? Really? This isn't an issue of someone tweeting stupidity and being harassed by people who are just like her? What a waste of energy.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see anything wrong with the comment. It states the facts as they are and makes a reasonable inductive argument from it.

Re:Seriously?

[SCHecklerX]

I'd feel sorry for your not getting /. right, but I'm not dyslexic!

Re: Seriously?

[Holi]

Of course you don't, that's why you proudly posted using your name right?

Re:Seriously?

[Kimomaru]

Yeah, there's no edit button. I'm sure you understood what I meant, you seem like a witty fellow :)

Re: Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Statistically speaking there are two populations I'd avoid sleeping with.
Neither of the two are affluent white chicks.

Yes, black women and black men have HIV in disproportionate quantities, vastly disproportionate quantities. HIV is rampant in both categories.

Re:Seriously?

[Seumas]

I have to assume her comment was made sarcastically. It seems clearly meant to be absurd to convey the opposite reality.

But even if it was a dumb ass saying awful shit online, I don't see why this is a story.

She isn't notable. Her employer, as far as I know, is not notable. She is not a politician. She is not a government employee. She is not even a celebrity of any status.

So who gives as hit what she sent as a twitter message or anything after the fact? If saying horrible shit is the noteworthy part of her existence and coverage, then journalists should start jumping on the Disqus-powered threads at the bottom of all the CBS articles linked to by DrudgeReport, because there are some pretty fucking horrendous things there from plenty of people. Or any article on the planet that has a Facebook comment system attached to it where people say the most vile shit under their full real name.

Re:Seriously?

[Kimomaru]

Nah, plain and simple, this is a case of a ninny saying something really stupid, being overexposed, and then being harassed by people who have nothing better to do. In ten years, we'll look back at these times and call this period The Golden Age of the Simpleton. This should have never been a story, no one should have reported on it, no one should have cared.

Context?

[YuppieScum]

Is it really too much to ask for the "summary" to actually provide even the tiniest morsel of context?

 

Re:Context?

[twocows]

Yes.

Re:Context?

[sandytaru]

The title pretty much sums it up. Justine Sacco made a (stupid, racist) comment that nobody found funny, and she had Internet Justice dispensed upon her in the form of a dangerous, righteous mob.

Re:Context?

[twocows]

Who is Justine Sacco and why should I care? My 70 year old Dad makes stupid, racist comments all the time (love him anyway, but man, some old people). I think he has even had a few internet mobs after him because he kept posting stupid, racist things to a primarily left-leaning internet forum for the better part of five years.

I understand that I could Google this or read the article, but the point is that the summary should offer some context for people unfamiliar with whatever this story is about, and it utterly fails to do that. It's a mess, the editor didn't do his job at all here.

Re:Context?

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Justine Sacco was a PR executive at IAC. IAC being the owner of sites like Ask.com, About, Vimeo, OkCupid, match.com, etc.

A PR exec should know that you should not say these things on a global soapbox like twitter.

Re:Context?

[RightSaidFred99]

What specifically was rac_ist_ about her comment? Racial, sure. Racist? How so?

Re:Context?

[CauseBy]

Agreed. I've read Slashdot for a long time, since before the Hellmouth days, and I've seen some poorly edited articles, but I think this one is the very worst.

Re:Context?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. That only black people would get aids?

Re:Context?

[Anonymous Coward]

Justine Sacco made a (stupid, racist) comment that nobody found funny,

Speak for yourself. I thought it was funny.

What's sad, and not funny, is all the slavering, self-righteous, bogus outrage.

Re:Context?

[Anonymous Coward]

The tweet didn't even mention black people. Not even implicitly.

Re:Context?

[Anonymous Coward]

Without endorsing anything he said, it sounds like your dad rules!

Re: Context?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the data white people have very low infection rates. Blacks anywhere you find them have very high rates of infection. The #1 new infected group in the US is drum roll... Black women. Either they have failed to wear condoms when having sex or they are too dumb to understand STDs... Or both.

Re:Context?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, this is a PR exec. The vocation doesn't always attract the brightest bulbs in the batch.

Re:Context?

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Yes, and this case is a clear example of it. That's why IAC fired her over this incident.

Re:Context?

[TheGratefulNet]

exactly. if this was a 'stupid engineer' or a techie, we don't expect too much in the way of manners and we are ok with social awkwardness in those folks.

but - when a PUBLIC RELATIONS EXEC says this, its immeidate cause for firing. no debate. their only purpose in life is to know how to be mature and business-like online. this girl blew it big-time and so deserves every bit of backlash she gets.

PR is a fluff job and I bet she made good money at it. yet she was incompetant (apparently) and this annoys us, too.

taking the powerful down a notch is fun. this is why everyone jumped on this. a fluffy empty-headed blonde getting her just[ine] deserts does make for good entertainment. she SHOULD have known better. its ALL her job is about and she blew that so badly, yes, she deserves to crash and burn.

Re:Context?

[Seumas]

Oh, IAC!... Who I've never heard of.

For Ask.com, About, Vimeo, OKCupid, and match.com?! . . . which nobody gives as hit about.

She might as well be a janitor at Engadget for all the fucks anyone gives.

Re: Context?

[rubycodez]

Most black women get AIDS from black men who were infected while in prison by engaging in homosexual activity.

Re:Context?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot that the company also runs collegehumor.com which happens to feature comments like hers all of the time.

Weird.

Re: Context?

[Anonymous Coward]

This was inevitable after that fake sign language guy obliterated the idea that Mandela's accomplishments represent advancement in SA. A fake schizoid murdering raping loony embarrasses an embarrassing country and so some clueless PR flak is given her 2 Minute hate and loses her job. Well done you lickspittle grovelling toads.

Re:Context?

[Anonymous Coward]

The tweet didn't even mention black people. Not even implicitly.

I don't think you understand what implicitly means.

Re:Context?

[Cederic]

Vimeo, OKCupid, and match.com?! . . . which nobody gives as hit about.

So nobody gives as hit about the top non-youtube video site and the largest dating site on the web?

Maybe you don't do online dating, but those sites are turning over $700m a year. Not many sites selling 0 physical products are managing that.

Re:Context?

[khallow]

So nobody gives as hit about the top non-youtube video site and the largest dating site on the web?

That pretty much sums up the argument.

Maybe you don't do online dating, but those sites are turning over $700m a year.

Actual profit for all of IAC is allegedly $160 million in 2012.

Re:Context?

[Cederic]

Oh no! They're only making a 10% profit margin? How awful. I feel terrible for them.

You may not give as hit, but clearly a lot of people do. Those sites are major web presences, and there'd be a couple of gaps in the marketplace were they to disappear.

Re:Context?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a terrible shame that people should feel they can't use the various modes of expression that humans have developed out of fear of a mob enforced simple mindedness. Her statement is not racist. It is a reference to a reality and a mindset. The reality that AIDS is devastating Africa's black population disproportionately and the mindset that causes some people to feel that AIDS is a Western white conspiracy. The mindset is morally and intellectualy indefensible so people who even make mention of it briefly are attacked and their comments called racist because attacking the person is viable where actual reasoned consideration of the views will reveal that the mindset is not viable in the light of day. This witch hunt was a victory of paranoia and aggressive ignorance over free speech about a real problem which is the paranoia itself. Twitter is a poor medium for thoughtful expression. It only gives enough room to create misunderstanding. If tweeters can't grow up then all this mob nonsense is just the pee in the kiddie pool.

Re:Context?

[Anonymous Coward]

The woman is a huge supporter of abortion rights for women. She has called for similar mob justice against others that have made anti-gay comments. And, she's a PR executive.

Imagine the words she said being said on Saturday Night Live. Imagine them dripping with irony, and as a way to call out how it's not right she has such privilege.

And suddenly, you realize the woman with 200 followers was probably being ironic to to call out a social injustice, and the lynch mob went crazy and actually one of their own.

 

What kind of summary is this?

[TheNastyInThePasty]

This might be the worst "summary" I've ever seen on slashdot.

Re:What kind of summary is this?

[fisted]

Well it's a UDP summary.

Re:What kind of summary is this?

[blackraven14250]

Seriously, I read /. regularly, and I have no clue what the hell is going on here from the summary alone. As in, not even a slight clue as to what the problem was originally. Sure, you can post some analysis, but sum up what happened up to this point for people who really haven't heard the original story.

Re:What kind of summary is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had already read an article about this very situation, and even I had no idea what the hell the "summary" was talking about.

Prime candidate for the worst Slashdot summary in the history of the site.

Re:What kind of summary is this?

[kaizendojo]

MOD +1 If you're going to copy and paste, at least take a look at context.

Re:What kind of summary is this?

[TangoMargarine]

Hey, they had to figure out a way to one-up the worse headline ever.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/12/19/0024249/uk-isp-adult-filters-block-sex-education-websites-allows-access-to-porn

Re:What kind of summary is this?

[astro128]

Seriously, I read /. regularly, and I have no clue what the hell is going on here from the summary alone. As in, not even a slight clue as to what the problem was originally. Sure, you can post some analysis, but sum up what happened up to this point for people who really haven't heard the original story.

I really wish I had some mod points to give you.

Re:What kind of summary is this?

[Fnord666]

This might be the worst "summary" I've ever seen on slashdot.

The biggest problem is that I keep being able to honestly say this every day.

yup

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why it is foolish to use your real name on the 'Net except when formally publishing something you want referenced from your CV.

How did a bozo like that get an executive PR gig?

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies need to stop coddling rich morons from overpriced schools and instead hire talented working class people who can actually get the job done.

Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

For those who didn't RTFA, her tweet said:

"Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"

I thought it was intended to be darkly ironic, reflecting an awareness of the privileges that the poor in africa don't have. It was an ugly truth, but censoring her for saying it doesn't help anyone except people who would rather pretend that aids in africa isn't a problem that lines up with race and economic status. She wasn't saying that aids is a disease for black people, she was saying that too many black people don't have access to the resources to protect themselves.

Compare this to the Duck Dynasty thing where the guy really had no sense of irony, the surface meaning of his words was the intended meaning.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know her personally or true intent?

While that case could be made, after looking at some of her other tweets, that are just as offensive, I am not so sure if her works meant anything other than what was intended.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Xolotl]

You are reading way too much intelligence into her tweet ....

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

While that case could be made, after looking at some of her other tweets, that are just as offensive, I am not so sure if her works meant anything other than what was intended.

Yeah, I read them, and I didn't get that impression from them. In one she talks about a big stinky german guy sitting near her on an airplane. Some people have taken that as being anti-german. I took it as the guy probably talking loudly with a german accent so it was an obviously identifiable characteristic. The brevity of tweets makes it deceptively easy to assume the worst intent on the part of the writer.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You are reading way too much intelligence into her tweet ....

Obviously I disagree. I look at her apology as evidence - it is a complete apology. Not one of those "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" passive-aggressive non-apologies that latent assholes and corporations use to defend their own wrong-headedness. It is an apology entirely consistent with my interpretation of the original tweet.

"Words cannot express how sorry I am, and how necessary it is for me to apologize to the people of South Africa, who I have offended due to a needless and careless tweet. There is an AIDS crisis taking place in this country, that we read about in America, but do not live with or face on a continuous basis. Unfortunately, it is terribly easy to be cavalier about an epidemic that one has never witnessed firsthand."

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[DaveV1.0]

You read too much into it hoping it wasn't exactly what it looked like.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Xolotl]

Her apology pretty much says it right there: "a needless and careless tweet". If it was "darkly ironic" etc etc it wouldn't be "needless and careless".

She's (was) a PR exec - writing heartfelt apologies is part of her job description. Then again, so is not creating PR disasters for her employer (which this was, even if it was indeed meant as a deep commentary on the lot of poor South Africans), so YMMV I suppose. Anyway, I find it hard to believe this was anything deep and meaningful with a history like this:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jenvesp/16-tweets-justine-sacco-regrets-hxg7

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[operagost]

Compare this to the Duck Dynasty thing where the guy really had no sense of irony, the surface meaning of his words was the intended meaning.

The irony is that you seem to believe you have intimate knowledge of what his intended meaning was.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Xolotl]

The brevity of tweets makes it deceptively easy to assume the worst intent on the part of the writer.

... and puts additional responsibility on the author to choose their words carefully.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Todays lesson: Don't drink and tweet, kids.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[operagost]

You probably should come to grips with the fact that you are tolerant of people's politically incorrect statements, unless they come from someone who you dislike (like Robertson).

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

It certainly sounds like dark humor, though in very poor taste.

Honestly I think the term racist or racism is applied too loosely to anyone who says something that is targeted at a specific group of people but isn't inherently hateful (eg poking fun at a stereotype). Racism = hatred of someone because of their ethnicity or color of their skin. Nothing she said indicates she hates Africans, only that her sense of humor is of poor taste. Besides you would think a grown woman in her position of a PR spokesperson would realize that what she was saying is both idiotic and offensive. She should have used better judgement.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Her apology pretty much says it right there: "a needless and careless tweet". If it was "darkly ironic" etc etc it wouldn't be "needless and careless".

It isn't an apology if you use it to defend yourself.

Then again, so is not creating PR disasters for her employer

I agree, she demonstrated poor suitability for her job regardless of her intentions.

I find it hard to believe this was anything deep and meaningful with a history like this:

Already addressed in my other post.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Racism = hatred of someone because of their ethnicity or color of their skin.

I disagree. Ask any asian person in the US what they think about the stereotype of being math whizzes. Racism is stereotyping based on race.

On the other hand, and maybe what you are trying to get at, is that there is a big difference between stereotyping (making assumptions) and talking about racial issues. It is can't racist to acknowledge that racism exists.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[khallow]

Eh, it looks like she's done this before. I think the real difference is that her customers have higher expectations and are a lot more delicate than Duck Dynasty viewers.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[HiThere]

But I don't have a clear idea of what it looked like.

I think this is probably common in twitter posts, as the short nature of the post encourages considerable ambiguity and lack of precision. OTOH, it seems a clear indication that she's unqualified as a PR executive.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You probably should come to grips with the fact that you are tolerant of people's politically incorrect statements, unless they come from someone who you dislike

You seem to be one of those people who have confused form for content. I'm tolerant of "politically incorrect" statements that don't promote hatred. It isn't bigotted to talk about bigotry.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are exactly right. If Sarah Silverman had tweeted that, it would have been a hilarious off-color insight into the socioeconomic facts of Africa. Sadly, people just love a good witch-hunt, because they feel small and powerless inside, but in an unruly mob they have FALCON PUNCH!

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

A white person who states that they are WHITE is now committing a 'thought crime', thanks to the JEWS who have taken over our countries...

Are you sick of this shit yet?

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't an apology if you use it to defend yourself.

That's what apologies are for. If it's not about minimizing bad consequences, why apologize at all?

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Do you know her personally or true intent?

Do you?

What about benefit of the doubt?

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Jason Levine]

Basically, her biggest mistake was using a hashtag. Her other offensive tweets weren't noticed because few people probably followed her (and the few that did wouldn't get so offended as to call for her to be fired). However, she included "#aids" in her tweet. This means that anyone who searched for "#aids" would see her tweet. As people who searched for that hashtag would tend to be those affected by or somehow interested in the subject, they would also likely get offended by a comment as stupid as "Going to Africa, hope I don't get AIDS, Oh, wait I'm white."

She apparently made offensive comments relating to autism and other things also, but didn't use a hashtag. Had she left off the hashtag, her tweet would likely have gone unnoticed and she would have likely kept her job. In essence, she was fired because of one character (#).

Which, of course, leads to the general rule about Twitter (or any Internet posting at all): Don't post what you wouldn't want your spouse, boss, co-workers, family, etc reading. Even if you think you're using a "private message/e-mail", assume that the message will be leaked out and become public. (How many "private e-mails" or "just sent to X" photos get leaked out to everyone?)

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[TangoMargarine]

I think a joke that includes AIDS in any way, shape, or form is bound to be unfunny and offensive. Unless of course you're South Park, apparently.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Jason Levine]

...And ignore the first two paragraphs above. I hadn't seen the actual tweet (relied on my wife's account of what happened) but the article has a screenshot of the tweet and there's no hashtag. Someone else might have retweeted it and added the hashtag which poured fuel on the fire.

The last paragraph remains true, though. Never post publicly what you wouldn't say to people face-to-face.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't an apology if you use it to defend yourself.

Maybe your imagination is better than mine, but I'm not sure I could come up with an apology for the tweet in question that WOULDN'T be presumed to be a defense by some people.

After all, if she had ended at "a needless and careless tweet," (dropping the next sentence), it would still be presumed to be a defense, and then her sincerity would have been called into question even more than it is now.

English is imprecise. Only she really knows what her motives are. You and I can only guess at them.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Alaska Jack]

Jah-Wren -

You are right, and 95 percent of the super-justified, self-righteous commenters on here are just making themselves sound foolish.

The tweet only makes sense as a work of sarcasm -- like walking outside during a rainstorm and saying "Wow -- great day!" In person, the way you convey sarcasm is with a turn of voice and an eyeroll. We all do things like this all the time. It's just that allowance for this type of expression don't exist on Twitter.

I am not a progressive and have little sympathy for that worldview. But it's relatively obvious to me that this girl is a progressive who was sarcastically *parodying* the white-privilege view put forth in her tweet. She obviously thought her "followers" would understand that.

This fact, which you've picked up on, has gone over the heads of nearly everyone else here. No one even wants to stop for a second and actually think about it.

lllll AJ

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

No idea if she was being racist or darkly ironic or just drunk, but she is a PR exec - she really should be sacked because not doing this sort of shit is what her job is.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[kaatochacha]

The lesson I'm learning is to simply never tweet or post anything.
Because someone, somewhere, possibly even in a future time, will find it offensive.
We are all turning into marshmallows.
And someone will be offended by that comment, I'm sure.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't an apology if you use it to defend yourself.

apology (noun): a defense, excuse, or justification in speech or writing, as for a cause or doctrine.
Synonyms: vindication
- Random House Dictionary

apology
1530s, "defense, justification," from L.L. apologia, from Gk. apologia "a speech in defense," from apologeisthai "to speak in one's defense," from apologos "an account, story," from apo- "from, off" (see apo-) + logos "speech." The original English sense of "self-justification"
- Online Etymology Dictionary

Re: Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

HIV is a largely self inflicted infection though. It's not as if it is transmitted via polluted water or airborne or fleas and mosquito.

It's an epidemic because of people who lack impulse control, forward planning and common sense.

She's just another grovelling disingenuous white liberal. DWLF.

Re: Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chosen celebrities can get away with murder. Literally. Afluent DWLF must grovel before Moloch, even though we now understand quite well, that there is a grain of truth to her blurted out statement.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

- Random House Dictionary

Funny how you cherry-picked there, the full random house definition is as follows, you'll note your "vindication" definition is 2nd, an actual expression of regret is first.

apology [uh-pol-uh-jee]
noun, plural apologies.

1. 1. a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another: He demanded an apology from me for calling him a crook.
2. 2. a defense, excuse, or justification in speech or writing, as for a cause or doctrine.
3. 3. (initial capital letter, italics) a dialogue by Plato, centering on Socrates' defense before the tribunal that condemned him to death.
4. 4. an inferior specimen or substitute; makeshift: The tramp wore a sad apology for a hat.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apology

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It was an ugly truth, but censoring her for saying it doesn't help anyone except people who would rather pretend that aids in africa isn't a problem that lines up with race and economic status.

The AIDS issue in Africa may line up with race, but it's not a racial issue; it's a cultural issue. Cultures may be associated primarily with one group or another, but they are different things. Her tweet essentially claims that she has nothing to worry about simply because of her race, and not because she understands the importance of, for example, safe sex when it comes to AIDS.

And for crap's sake, she was a PR exec who displays her connection to her now-former employer on her personal Twitter account. It boggles my mind that she would think nothing of posting what she did under those circumstances. I don't know if IAC would have let her keep her job if she hadn't associated her account with the company, but, because she had, it seems logical that they would let her go for a pretty obvious disregard for the image of her employer (which she was specifically being paid to be concerned about).

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[rubycodez]

so it's ok to make jokes about cancer or getting shot or diabetes, but AIDS is off-limits?

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Common Joe]

The brevity of tweets makes it deceptively easy to assume the worst intent on the part of the writer.

You are correct. Regardless of what Justine Sacco really meant or what se was really thinking, those in the I.T. world have have all known for well over a decade that emails can be and frequently are misconstrued. I believe that is why emoticons / smilies came to be. They help convey the actual meaning of the author. You can't hear or see the emotions of the sender otherwise. (Not that emoticons or "lol" are that great.) Tweets are even worse than email in this regard because of the brevity.

Re: Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, what about people who got infected through blood transfusions? Or newborn babies infected during mother's pregnancy? Or EMTs scratched by infected needles?

Dumbass.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[ildon]

Or we can all just recognize it for the throw-away medium it is and stop putting so much weight on things said on it.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Has_Aides

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

What it "looked like" to me is not the same as what you assert. Your incredibly simple minded interpretation would suggest that she felt that she couldn't get AIDS because she is white. Clearly that is not the case so any reasonable interpretation can't be the incredibly simple minded one you assert.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[operagost]

What hatred? Did either of these people advocate violence or cruelty? And to negate the belligerence of the Slashdot censors, here is my original post:

You probably should come to grips with the fact that you are tolerant of people's politically incorrect statements, unless they come from someone who you dislike (like Robertson).

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What hatred? Did either of these people advocate violence or cruelty?

Violence and cruelty are not the only forms of hatred. The fact that you are already trying to reframe the issue into something more narrow suggests you are cognizant of the error of your ways but don't wish to acknowledge them.

He said: "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Donâ(TM)t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they wonâ(TM)t inherit the kingdom of God. Donâ(TM)t deceive yourself. Itâ(TM)s not right."

He's clearing equating homosexuality with bestiality and fraud among others.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[captainlavender]

Thank you! It's a common and endlessly frustrating myth that talking about real-world discrepancies is racism. And if you just take them at face value, or see it as the way things are, okay, it is. But if you look at those facts and how they came to be true, how things are different when you're a member of a minority, well that's just about the opposite of racism. "Uneducated black people in Africa gets AIDS. LOL!" is racism. "Uneducated black people in Africa get AIDS. Can you imagine being subject to a disease surrounded by misconceptions and not having access to medical care, damn. I wonder how I'd feel towards those rich, white people if that were me" = not racism.

Re:Another Case of Poe's Law?

[TangoMargarine]

Where did I say that? I'm not a fan of South Park, and would consider cancer in the same unfunny camp.

In the old days

[John Allsup]

People called foxes vermin and hunted them with a pack of dogs.
Now people call other people names and hunt them with a pack of other humans.

Aside from that, the basic drive is the same.  It's a relic from our caveman days, so far as I'm concerned.

Re:In the old days

[asliarun]

People called foxes vermin and hunted them with a pack of dogs.
Now people call other people names and hunt them with a pack of other humans.

Aside from that, the basic drive is the same. It's a relic from our caveman days, so far as I'm concerned.

+5 Insightful.

Forming packs and hunting people is old sport too. There's a reason they call this activity a witch-hunt.

Along with the pack violence mentality that persists in us humans, what amazes me is our capacity for double standards.
There's a special sort of viciousness that we reserve for others, when we observe a trait in them - that we despise in ourselves.

Re:In the old days

[couchslug]

Evolution preserved the trait.

What made, and possibly makes, it useful to the species?

The small-town phenomenom

[Todd Knarr]

It's something anyone who grew up in a small town understands: when you do something stupid in public, everybody will know about it. In a big city, if you make a fool of yourself at a bar, you'll be the laughingstock of the patrons for a couple weeks until someone else comes along. You'll be the butt of jokes from your friends for a while. But the world at large will be pretty much oblivious. In a small town it's different. Everyone in town will know someone who was there, and what would've been a miniscule fraction of the big city will be 90% of the small town. But it'll still mostly be shrugged off, because again everyone in town's been there. Anyone who rags on you too badly will have their own foray into foolishness brought up and bandied about again, and they'll shut up and let it drop. And individually you learn early on what kinds of things will merely make you look foolish vs. what things will cause serious town-wide outrage, and you avoid doing the latter kind.

The Internet is more the small town than the big city. People assume that nobody will find out what they said or did in public, but the anonymity of the big city just isn't there. And the person in question is what makes a lot of these things such a big deal. We don't see a big flap over the thousands of stupid, racist, bigoted comments ordinary people make every day. In this case though, as with the "Duck Dynasty" case, it's not an ordinary person. It's someone who ought to know that their comments are being broadcast to a much larger audience, and who ought to know how those comments are going to be taken. And they go ahead and make them anyway. That's what makes these things go viral like they do.

Re:The small-town phenomenom

[Anonymous Coward]

the anonymity of the big city just isn't there

I beg to differ.

Re:The small-town phenomenom

[TubeSteak]

We don't see a big flap over the thousands of stupid, racist, bigoted comments ordinary people make every day.

I think this dovetails into TFA's shock and surprise that âoeinternet justiceâ leads to death threats, when really that almost any [public person] gets threatened with harm, no matter how non-controversial the reason for their (sudden) fame.

Re:The small-town phenomenom

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the Internet will get better as everyone eventually does something stupid in public, just like in a small town.

Stupid article, stupid author

[wickerprints]

Ms. Sacco deserved everything she got. Nothing more, nothing less. If you do something so overwhelmingly and obviously stupid as what she did, and then compounded that stupidity by getting on a plane and going offline for several hours, what do you expect is going to happen? The author of the article is just trying to twist this sordid tale into some kind of cautionary example of the excesses of "internet justice." Meanwhile, kids are killing themselves because they're being bullied for doing nothing other than being themselves. Where's the author's outrage over that? Ms. Sacco neither has the excuse of being a child, nor the defense of having done nothing to offend. If you do something so stupid that NOBODY is willing to defend it, then why should she not suffer the consequences? One should also consider that the kind of people who would even entertain making such offensive remarks in a public forum are not the kind of people who are so easily shamed. They tend to be sociopaths who end up hardening their self-image in response to the outrage. Don't weep for the likes of her.

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[whoever57]

The author of the article is just trying to twist this sordid tale into some kind of cautionary example of the excesses of "internet justice."

Exactly. This is the author saying that people who have little power as individuals should not gang up to weild power as a group, after all, next time, it could be a wealthy person who is the target of the hate, and Forbes would not like that.

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[Anonymous Coward]

Ms. Sacco deserved everything she got. Nothing more, nothing less. If you do something so overwhelmingly and obviously stupid as what she did, and then compounded that stupidity by getting on a plane and going offline for several hours, what do you expect is going to happen? The author of the article is just trying to twist this sordid tale into some kind of cautionary example of the excesses of "internet justice." Meanwhile, kids are killing themselves because they're being bullied for doing nothing other than being themselves. Where's the author's outrage over that? Ms. Sacco neither has the excuse of being a child, nor the defense of having done nothing to offend. If you do something so stupid that NOBODY is willing to defend it, then why should she not suffer the consequences? One should also consider that the kind of people who would even entertain making such offensive remarks in a public forum are not the kind of people who are so easily shamed. They tend to be sociopaths who end up hardening their self-image in response to the outrage. Don't weep for the likes of her.

Yeah, it read to me like the author was saying, "hey, we all make racist comments and sometimes the world finds out about them! Isn't it unfair that this racist loses their job?"

Well no, it's not unfair. And I bet she's employed in 3 months if she bothers looking...there are a lot of companies that couldn't care less about such things.

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[hondo77]

Darn, I just used up my mod points. Well done.

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[Anonymous Coward]

On top of the fact that she was a PR executive who is showed herself simply incompetent at her job.

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[RightSaidFred99]

You respond with outrage because it makes you feel good about yourself. I respond with apathy because I don't care. Comme ci comme ca.

It's all about poor ego development. It makes people feel good to think that they are righting some wrong by attacking people like her, or like Paula Deen, or Phil Robertson, etc...

It's dreary. I can see getting upset if someone is inciting violence or making threats, or even pushing for e.g. anti-gay legislation. That matters.

What some random tweeter says? Who gives a fuck.

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[Anonymous Coward]

Ms. Sacco deserved everything she got. Nothing more, nothing less

A remarkable coincidence, wouldn't you say?

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ, this is mod'd insightful. It's fucking groupthink bullshit.

Just for shits and giggles, I wonder if wickerprints thinks Sarah Silverman deserves an equal amount or more of public ridicule and financial harm as Justine Sacco? After all, what Sacco tweeted is small potatoes to the vile, offensive, and humorous things that Silverman spouts in exchange for lots of money.

Sacco's only crime is that she was trying to be funny and failed. Your insistence that she "suffer the consequences" says more about your sociopathy than hers.

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[Urkki]

Based purely on this /. article's comment's, I'd say she deserves a medal for bringing attention to the AIDS problem in Africa... Also, do you think her apology is insincere, or do you just generally not believe in forgiving?

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[GoCrazy]

I think you missed the point of the article that, instead of defending or marginalizing her actions, talk about celebrity-gossipesque world-wide pile ons for people who aren't at celebrity status. The paparazzi and readers of celebrity gossip feel justified to talk about how people they don't personally know did this or deserves that, because they're public figures and their personal lives are on display. Now this extends to anyone who sends a public message. You talk about kids getting bullied into suicide which, incidentally, parallels the mob-mentality here where strangers feel personally justified to contribute to the downfall of a person for doing "something stupid". Here, like high school bullying, why do arm chair activists do it? It's hardly for justice. It's because it's entertaining.

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids aren't killing themselves because they are bullied, they are killing themselves because they are suffering from mental illness (probably temporarily so).

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[Anonymous Coward]

Did it ever occur to you that bullying can cause mental illness?

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Meanwhile, kids are killing themselves because they're being bullied for doing nothing other than being themselves. Where's the author's outrage over that?

Possibly in a different article? Or were you expecting this one article to lay bare the author's opinions on every aspect of life?

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[Anonymous Coward]

She said something dumb on the Internet. For this she lost her job and her reputation. Over the next ten years, she is likely to suffer over 6 figures of damages in lost income as a result. Have you ever said anything dumb on the Internet? My bet is that you have. She didn't say it on her company's twitter feed. She apologized. The accusers know nothing about her. And most of them have said worse things on the Internet. Should they all be fired? Where do we draw the line?

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[Anonymous Coward]

Ms. Sacco deserved everything she got. Nothing more, nothing less.

Who the fuck are you to say what she deserved ?

You're a piece of shit.

___

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[Common Joe]

Ms. Sacco deserved everything she got. Nothing more, nothing less. If you do something so overwhelmingly and obviously stupid as what she did, and then compounded that stupidity by getting on a plane and going offline for several hours, what do you expect is going to happen?

You must be the first perfect person the whole of humanity has ever had.

The author of the article is just trying to twist this sordid tale into some kind of cautionary example of the excesses of "internet justice." [Snip] If you do something so stupid that NOBODY is willing to defend it, then why should she not suffer the consequences?

I'm not going to defend what she said. It would offend my black friends and therefore offends me. With that said, no one deserves what "internet justice" dishes out. It is swift, merciless, unforgiving, and life-lasting. Other ways should be used to discourage and curb this kind of behavior.

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[Anonymous Coward]

... going offline for several hours ...

So people who use twitter must stay online in case the world disagrees with them and demands their death?

... kids are killing themselves ...

AIDS is killing people too but it's more important that everyone 'think of the children'.

... they're being bullied for doing nothing other than being themselves ...

You're saying that Ms Sacco was obviously stupid but wasn't being herself.

... nor the defense of having done nothing to offend ...

So bullies aren't offended by their victims? Your demand that a "needless and careless tweet" receive a violent and uncaring response must be "internet justice".

... sociopaths who end up hardening their self-image in response to the outrage ...

Maybe, because they think faceless busy-bodies should be outraged by the indifference of indigenous culture that allows unsafe sexual activities; or by the lack of medical services.

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[Anonymous Coward]

Because what she is experiencing and what the bullied kids experience comes from the exact same place. People can act offended by just about anything. Did she or the bullied kid actually harm you? Why do you wish harm upon someone who did not harm you? Offense?

Re:Stupid article, stupid author

[Anonymous Coward]

> so overwhelmingly and obviously stupid

> being bullied for doing nothing

> Where's the outrage?

> Don't weep for the likes

You are everything that is wrong with this world. To make the world a better place, drive a bus containing your immediate family and friends off a cliff.

it is appaling.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a public lynching by a bunch of hypocrites who just want to show there moral superiority in a cheap way.

Instead, get your ass into a hospice and show your moral superiority there by actually helping out.

Re:it is appaling.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a public lynching by a bunch of hypocrites who just want to show their moral superiority in a cheap way.

FTFY. I just want to show my grammar superiority.

Instead, get your ass into a hospice and show your moral superiority there by actually helping out.

Hey! Now you got it right, congrats!

Re:it is appaling.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! Now you got it right, congrats!

Even a broken clock is right twice a day... at least if it is a regular analog 12 hour clock.

Re:it is appaling.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day... at least if it is a regular analog 12 hour clock.

What if said clock were moving eastward at a rate of 1/24 the circumference of the earth per hour? #IsBrokenClockRightYet

Re:Or maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Her father is a South African billionaire, so I think she'll be okay.

Vapid

[CodeArtisan]

Wow. I have mod points and want to use them all to negatively mod the "summary" to "Incoherent".

Re:Vapid

[NIK282000]

Why can't we use MOD points on articles yet? Maybe we could collectively bring the quality up a little.

Re:Vapid

[aardvarkjoe]

Allowing moderators to moderate the articles themselves would be an admission that the Slashdot editors aren't very good at what they do.

Re:Vapid

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they're very good at what they do. And if we ever find out what that is, we can see it for ourselves.

What the hell did I just read?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this shit? I have no idea what this is about. The submitter needs to learn about something called context.

News Flash!

[MarkvW]

(1) PR professional goes viral to a degree that she only dreamed of before (but it's not pretty).
(2) People talk about her comment.
(3) People talk about people talking about her comment.
(4) People talk about people talking about people talking about her comment.

Being fired was the correct response regardless

[al0ha]

The point of her being fired has nothing to do with public outrage, hysteria, infotainment.

This person is a highly paid corporate PR professional and her tweet showed that she is not that good at her job after all, thus being fired. My wife is a PR professional who would never make such as stupid mistake, because she's a professional to the core at all times.

Re:Being fired was the correct response regardless

[Anonymous Coward]

she's a professional to the core at all times

Including in a bar, locker room, party at home, or other informal non-professional environments like Twitter?

Re:Being fired was the correct response regardless

[hey!]

Well, you are right of course, the behavior was unprofessional. That doesn't mean that the reaction isn't disturbing.

Just because the inciting behavior is unreasonable doesn't make the piling on reaction *rational*. It has more than a whiff of a mob turning on someone who is suddenly perceived as vulnerable.

The people reacting to this act like they know all about this person. But do they? All they have to go on is one foolish comment. Many years ago, in the early 70s, my older teen sister volunteered in a program for intellectually disabled children -- this was at a time before this kind of service was common, or required for high school graduation. One day she remarked to one of her friends that she had to leave because it was time to go see "her retards." Word got back to one of the parents and my sister was banned from the program. Now I can understand the position of the parent defending her child, but is it reasonable for her to deprive her child of the support and help of someone he loved just because that person said something stupid?

If there is one thing I've learned over the years it's that the fruits of self-righteousness are bitter. The instinct to become part of an avenging mob is no respecter of fact, context, circumstance or consequences. It is not to be trusted.

Re:Being fired was the correct response regardless

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife is a PR professional who would never make such as stupid mistake, because she's a professional to the core at all times.

That has to be tiring... doesn't your wife ever let he hair down and say a few off the cuff remarks? Who here hasn't sad something that wasn't considered in good taste or politically correct? I read some of her other tweets and honestly, they all seem like jokes. I don't know the context most of them are referring too, but I a sense of jokes from this woman. I bet her friends and followers found them amusing too.

This doesn't make her a bad person, just a person who makes bad decisions online.

Re:Being fired was the correct response regardless

[Maritz]

The instinct to become part of an avenging mob is no respecter of fact, context, circumstance or consequences. It is not to be trusted.

Very well said. Those who are champing at the bit to throw that 'first stone' should be called out every bit as much as the idiot PR person. "Look how racist we all aren't!"

Re:Being fired was the correct response regardless

[acoustix]

Except that the company that she works for runs websites like collegehumor.com and feature comments like hers all of the time. Her company actually profits from crude humor.

Isn't that hypocritical?

Re:Being fired was the correct response regardless

[I_redwolf]

"but is it reasonable for her to deprive her child of the support and help of someone he loved just because that person said something stupid?"

Yes, you see, here is the crux of the problem. What is said is hurtful, tasteless and beyond the privilege afforded to your sister in this case. The child might have loved the person your sister portrayed and your sister might have even been the best intellectually disabled volunteer walking planet Earth. She may not have even meant it in that light. However she disowned all of that by making hurtful comments about her own work, that she could even mouth the words to see them in that light is the problem. So, the child may have been deprived of the most awesome disabled volunteer to walk this planet, but it was your sister whose actions caused that behavior. We all make mistakes, and mistakes have consequences. Some more grave than others. It's a lesson most children learn early, some a little later than others and in this case a lot later.

Is the mob always right? Of course not, but in this case and your sister's.. spot on.

Re:Being fired was the correct response regardless

[Kneo24]

My wife is a PR professional who would never make such as stupid mistake, because she's a professional to the core at all times.

At all times? So she never lets her hair down, says a few off the cuff marks that are more than likely non-PC? Puh-leeze. The mistake this woman made was doing it so... publicly. Each and every single one of us here have said similar things before and then laughed about it.

If you look at the rest of her jokes they were in context to something. Most of them I don't get because the context is missing. The aids thing is insensitive, but meh. The aids epidemic in Africa is mostly with the black population there. The white population has the education to know what lurks around the corner, the black population doesn't. Again, context and very insensitive, but I bet at least half of us lulled about it.

Tired of political correctness

[t0qer]

I spend more time in IRC than I should, but often we crack jokes about how a product "Has aids". I won't go into all the other things we talk about, but it's like a bunch of 30-40 year olds pretending to be 14 again. It's all jest, and in good fun. Doesn't mean we're homophobic (one of our regulars is Homosexual) but even he takes all the jokes in stride, because we're all friends.

I know folks from the last generation, before political correctness became so steeped in our culture. They give each other shit for fun. A venerable fountain of racial slurs and epitaphs flow freely from them, with no concern for peoples feelings or political correctness. It's a short form of hazing, to see if someone can congeal in the workplace, put aside differences and work well with others.

Those days are gone. What we have now is a work environment of walking on egg shells and carefully measuring each word for fear of offending someone. We spend an almost equal amount of time worrying about in office politics as we do actually working. I don't like it.

Re:Tired of political correctness

[Anonymous Coward]

I spend more time in IRC than I should, but often we crack jokes about how a product "Has aids".

Ha.

Back when I was a kid, I remember TV commercials for Ayds, an appetite suppressant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayds

Possibly the most unfortunate name for a product.

Re:Tired of political correctness

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying that iPads "have aids" is not the same as saying black people in Africa have AIDS and it's funny because I'm white and don't. One is hyperbole, the other is rather racist and downright flippant about an actual epidemic that is literally killing people.

Re:Tired of political correctness

[Anonymous Coward]

How can I -1 the Troll rating... political correctness is a PIA in my book... too many folks being thin skinned about too many things... unless skinthickness has something to do with race, religion, nation origin or sexual inclination... then I am in BIG TROUBLE.. whu-boy!

And, yes, this is Anonymous Coward, cravenly signing off...having well recognized the mob out there and inclined to spend the evening at the library.

Re:Tired of political correctness

[Eunuchswear]

For some reason the Swedish International Development Agency has problems giving away it's Teeshirts in French speaking West Africa.

Re:Tired of political correctness

[fahrbot-bot]

often we crack jokes about how a product "Has aids". I won't go into all the other things we talk about, but it's like a bunch of 30-40 year olds pretending to be 14 again. It's all jest, and in good fun.

Seriously, you need to have that checked out and fixed before you pass such moronic behavior on to your children. You're *not* 14 years old, you're 30-40. It's not about political correctness and "walking on eggshells" it's about growing the fuck up and realizing that words, like actions, can have (good and bad) impact and consequences.

Re:Tired of political correctness

[Cederic]

Ah, c'mon. Sometimes it's good to kick away the props of maturity and unleash your inner teen.

I tend to do it by insulting people for their inept play on World of Tanks, where a throwaway audience I'll never meet have no idea who I actually am and I'm trying to kill them anyway, but other people choose other routes.,

It's called stress relief, amongst other things. You should try some.

Actually, her comment was a little funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but I thought her comment was kind of funny, and had some truth to it. Let's face it, some of the black dominated governments in Africa helped AIDS to spread by denying the disease for many years.

Re:Actually, her comment was a little funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of another "government", that is also greatly responsible for that ...
It's territory is miniscule.
It's in Europe.
It has global reach.
It's dominated by white people (exclusively male), who are very well educated.

Any guesses which one ?

No race (or religion for that matter) has exclusivety rights on stupidity and criminal manipulation of the masses for their own self interest.

Terrible summary

[Anonymous Coward]

When making a summary, it helps to explain who the subject is if they're a not someone famous (to explain why we should care).

It also helps to say what the subject did so we know what was done.

Following these rules, it'll make it much easier for us to ignore stories about PR people who made poorly thought out/poorly written statements on their Twitter accounts.

The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street.

[serialband]

Human beings are monsters in these situations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

Don't feed the trolls nor troll to feed the masses

[ndykman]

Simple as that. Not every random thought you have is worth Tweeting, Facebooking, or whatever brand name to verb is out there.

And to those that were outraged enough to tweet just how outraged you were: just consider actually doing something useful, or saying nothing. Not every little thing affects you personally. Not every racist, sexist, homophobic or just plain dumb comment deserves outrage and shaming by the trolls, err, masses. In fact, most if not all don't.

Sure, if you know somebody in person and you were offended by their remarks then talk to them. Educate them. Make them deal with you as a person. Real life consequences are what matter.

This behavior drives wedges in society and does nothing to actually address the real issues. Having real, personal conversations in our community does. I know it is easy to think of online social networks as communities, but they are not. It's where people live and interact on a daily basis is where real change happens.

Wrong, we thought the were all funny

[bricko]

Especially the one about the Brits etc......heh. But all were spot on. Embrace the suck.

Live by the crowd, die by the crowd

[jd.schmidt]

Anonymous nobodies can say dumb thing all day long with lesser consequences because they have less to lose. If you are making your money in the public eye, you also suffer from its displeasure. There is no way around it. Also, everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to this stuff, people turn from supposed supporters of free speech, as if that should protect your job, to demanding resignations for saying the wrong thing all the time.

Re:Live by the crowd, die by the crowd

[smooth wombat]

people turn from supposed supporters of free speech, as if that should protect your job, to demanding resignations for saying the wrong thing all the time.

Free speech does not mean free from consequences. You can say whatever you want and people are free to react based on your comment. So if I were to tweet, "Damn niggas ruining the place. Should have hung em all 50 years ago", you are free to call me out in any way shape or form despite y right to free speech.

She's the same way. She (apparently) thought she was being funny but both failed miserably and picked a topic which harkened back to the time of Reagan (before she was born).

It bears repeating: The nice thing about free speech is it reveals to the world the true nature of an individual.

Re:Live by the crowd, die by the crowd

[jd.schmidt]

I don't disagree, I think I was kind of saying something similar. However if you pay attention you will notice how often people change their tune about so called free speech when they like or dislike the person in question or what was said. For example very few of the people defending the duck commander actually disagree with his comment, and very many of the same people called loudly for Bashir to be fired.

FYI, this is common to everyone, not just one group. Still some people do rise about it somehow.

Re:Live by the crowd, die by the crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Speech doesn't now nor has it ever meant freedom from consequences!

Re:Live by the crowd, die by the crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

However if you pay attention you will notice how often people change their tune about so called free speech when they like or dislike the person in question or what was said.

I think that's part of the power relationship of the people involved. The major point of respecting "free speech" is that you should be "free" of the "consequences" at times. I think it flows also from the idea of "truth to power". So, yea, people often change their tune precisely because a person in PR who speaks about "the people" is laying herself up for judgement from the people, but they have no real power to effect her. Hence, they can scorn her all they like and her employer can do whatever it likes. Change the story a little and give the people the power to fire her and it's different. The same holds true of said PR person belittling her company. And again if it weren't a PR person but some random employee who just happens to be wearing something, a form of expression, the boss doesn't like.

In short, the point is who has the power and who is exercising it and just how seemingly arbitrary or vengeful it is. Now, take it a step further to physical acts of force and you can step into the real of a system of justice and the story changes significantly. Because sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. So, there's reason to recognize a right to respond in kind and at most proportional to the cause. So, in the end, it doesn't bother me nearly as much if a PR person gets fired--although a public reprimand might do well enough or even a "we wholly support our employees to make comments, even if we personal may not approve" or doing absolutely nothing. It's hard to talk about justice, though, because really this was all orthogonal acts by a 3rd party and any real "blame" lies upon IAC, not the internet or supposedly vigilantes.

Re:Live by the crowd, die by the crowd

[kaatochacha]

You had me until you sort of randomly brought in Reagan, like he's the racist bogeyman.

Re: Live by the crowd, die by the crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Might I remind you that even Stalin's inner circle of trust regularly faced consequences. Additionally, ordinary common sense people will catch on that you represent a totalitarian regime.

Re:Or maybe...

[DaveV1.0]

PR person makes racist joke on social media? That isn't job job ending. That is a career ending move.

Note: Twitter is public

[Danathar]

Why people seem to forget that twitter is PUBLIC is crazy.

Re:Note: Twitter is public

[Anonymous Coward]

This. THIS. THIS!!!

It's Twitter, not email nor Facebook. The explicit, express purpose of twitter is to broadcast your message. Everyone who uses twitter should know that, especially those in the PR business. If you said this out loud anywhere else, you'd get a shitstorm in person, and more if there are cameras rolling. In this woman's case, she fucked up by expressing tactless, slightly racists, somewhat offensive thoughts in public with the digital equivalent of a megaphone to a crowd of millions. She's in PR?

Re:Note: Twitter is public

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a case of not realizing twitter is public. She probably thought her tweet was hilarious.

Social media is the reason behind this

[Anonymous Coward]

Sites such as "imgur.com" where you can anonymously "judge" other users are at the heart of this digital "mob mentality". Post a funny picture of a cat but misspell one word or use improper grammar and you'll be lynched by thousands of "downvotes."

In the real world with real consequences beyond "fake internet points", it gets even worse to the point people commit suicide from the aftermath of a social gaff.

The only way to stay safe is to not participate.

what?

[larry bagina]

I support Justine Sacco. The trend to silence and punish anyone you disagree with (duck dynasty, c+=, Steve "losana" Martin, slashdot moderation, etc) is dangerous.

Re:what?

[HornWumpus]

I'd support her, if she was anything other then a flack in the first place.

Professional bullshitters have to do better then this.

Mob or no mob, this was DUMB

[ErichTheRed]

I couldn't believe this when I saw it. What really got me was WHY a PR "professional" would post something like this. She gets paid to put positive spins on corporate communications. Was alcohol involved? Did she think she was posting something for only her Facebook friends to consume? Did someone guess her supersecret password "password123" and decide to have fun? Turns out she was just being dumb. Don't they teach this stuff in college communications classes? (I guess that's why the communications majors were at the bars 6 nights a week while us science nerds were studying our butts off for little gain.)

True PR people can be amazingly good at what they do. Look at all the bad press heaped on BP after their drilling rig blew up, or the banks when the economy almost collapsed. The PR people were churning out positive spins on stories for all these companies...I really think they just live in an alternate reality and believe 100% in what they write.

I'm not a big Facebook person -- I only use it to keep up with family and old friends -- and I don't have a Twitter account. Maybe I'm old but I really don't understand the point of Twitter. Facebook I get, sort of. Twitter is a complete mystery to me, and it only seems like it appeals to people who want to stalk celebrities...excuse me, celebrities' PR departments. :-)

The permanent nature of Internet communications is very real -- once something is said, it can never be unsaid. It's what stops me from putting up the casual IT blog I'm interested in doing -- I'm paranoid about some employer somewhere taking offense with something that was said years back.

Re:Mob or no mob, this was DUMB

[Anonymous Coward]

I read a previous tweet or FB post of hers where she asked, "I can't get fired for saying something stupid online if I'm drunk, can I?" (words to that effect)

The answer is, of course you can. This is an average 'no common sense' young woman, rich family, so she doesn't have 'street smarts' enough to know to not post while under the influence. By the time she'd gotten off of her 11 hour flight her tweet had already gone 'viral'. Probably a type of comment she's made before in her little circle of friends and never got called on the carpet for. But she hasn't matured since getting her P.R. job, she should have known better, obviously she did not.

Re:Mob or no mob, this was DUMB

[Alaska Jack]

Erich -

These are good questions, but see my two other comments in this thread.

I could care less about defending this girl, and I can certainly agree it was stupid to send out any tweet about race or AIDS that could in any way be misconstrued.

But that doesn't change the fact (I believe) that people ARE misconstruing it.

As I've noted, the tweet makes far more sense if you read it as sarcasm, and imagine the girl giving an eye-roll as she says it.

Again, one can still say it was stupid, especially for a PR professional. But while that would suggest that she (at least occasionally) has bad professional judgement, having poor judgement is much less of a sexy crime than being a racist.

(And note that, if you read the tweet as sarcasm, it would in fact suggest she is anti-racism, since she was *parodying* what she sees as racist ideas).

lllll AJ

Public Relations Executive

[Anonymous Coward]

Senior PR executive has no clue about the consequences of sending out moronic tweets in her own name may have on her own image.

Tweet goes viral, everybody starts saying she's an idiot and because she's publicised who she works for her on the net, her bosses read it and think "PR disaster caused by supposed PR expert, obviously not such an expert after all". Employment ceases. Simple.

This is not about censorship, freedom of speech, political correctness. If you plaster your life, career and thoughts all over the web, expect consequences if you post stuff like this, and realise that those consequences may be beyond your control. I mean, you're free to walk into the boardroom and say loudly that you think every executive at your company is an asshole, but don't expect to get a round of applause for exercising your freedom of speech afterwards.

Who ? What ?

[Pop69]

Why should I care or even know about this ?

You are right in that she is stupid, but

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot to add she should be burned at the stake. You of course know everything she really believes, and has actually done besides this stupid tweet. You yourself have never done or said anything offensive in your whole life so be sure you pick up really big stones when you throw them at her.

Of course what she said was stupid, but why should the entire internet bury her? She was a nobody despite being a PR flick, and it appears was already taking flak from the few folks that actually knew her, so did she really need to get dumped on more than that? Isn't that what friends are for when go off the rails a bit? For goodness sakes, somebody managed to get to the airport to take pictures of her when she arrived? Pictures of a nobody who posted a stupid tweet!

I don't know if she is a decent person who just did something stupid, or is the evil sociopath you are convinced she is, but it would actually be nice to know before destroying her for all time.

Freedom of speech..no?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this covered under freedom of speech?
Not saying she said something good, it was more duckspeak then anything.
but, she does have the right to say it.

I just feel personally, that this kind of internet Mob bullying is doubleplusbad.

Re:Freedom of speech..no?

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech protects you from the government not other people. You can say whatever you want, but others can respond to you how they want (in speech terms). It's the same for the Duck Dynasty thing. Republicans want to make it a 1st Amendment issue but A&E isn't a government organization and the people complaining aren't government actors. We have freedom of speech as long as everyone has the opportunity to speak.

Re:Freedom of speech..no?

[no_go]

Yes it is a freedom of speech issue (well , depending on jurisdiction...),
which means that people who disagree or feel ofended also have a right to voice their offense and disagreement.

No only that, but she is a professional that deals with Image and relates with the Public.
By public, i mean everyone that _may_ have any relation with the company she represents:
- Customers
- Advertisers
- Share holders
- Etc....

Some of these will NOT wan't to be associated with that kind of remarks (irrespective of aggreeing with them or not).
This reflects directly on that person's professional ability, and also on that person's image, as well as the companies represented.

This makes it a major and very public PROFESSIONAL AND SOCIAL FAIL.

Re:Freedom of speech..no?

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech isn't about protecting you from the consequences of what you say. It is about the government not coming down on you for your words because they disagree or disapprove of them. You are still completely and utterly responsible for your words and can be sued for liable, taken to court, charged with various hate crimes etc etc. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences, it just means freedom from government persecution.

Re: Freedom of speech..no?

[Anonymous Coward]

Totalitarian prick.

Re:Freedom of speech..no?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, her former boss is highly suspected of being gay. You just don't joke about AIDS around gays.

Heat map = population map

[jklovanc]

Considering that majority of the people who have read or re-tweeted the post are from Europe or North America it would follow that the majority of outrage would also come from Europe or North America.

Re:Heat map = population map

[Chris Mattern]

Considering that majority of the people who have read or re-tweeted the post are from Europe or North America it would follow that the majority of outrage would also come from Europe or North America.

Or maybe its just that the majority of twitter users come from Europe or North America.

Re:Or maybe...

[jythie]

Unless of course you want to work for a company that agrees with whatever you said. Even if they are not openly racist, after the initial drama dies down there are plenty of companies that have management who buy into the idea that such things are liberal-pc-whatever in nature and thus hiring such a person is a quiet 'screw you' to a culture they don't approve of.

What if she hates what is going on there?

[SCHecklerX]

Devil's advocate:

What if that were a sarcastic comment aimed at the lack of help people in Africa get?

One can spin this however they want...

Re:What if she hates what is going on there?

[no_go]

As a PR professional she MUST take a really good look at what she says and writes.

If there is even the slightest possibility that it might be mis-interpreted it WILL, and should be stated differently.

Still a fail.

Re:What if she hates what is going on there?

[Alaska Jack]

SCHecklerX -

Actually, as I noted in my comment upthread, that's the only context in which the tweet itself makes any sense.

I have no interest in "spinning" it. I'm not a progressive, and I suspect this girl is. I think she expected that her "followers" all knew her to a certain degree, and would know she was being sarcastic.

People should try this: Read the tweet in question. Then, read it again, this time picturing the girl rolling her eyes as she says it. Takes on completely different meaning, doesn't it?

lllll AJ

Instead of moderation

[mseeger]

Instead of moderation, we have a mob.

Re:Instead of moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of moderation, we have a mob.

...moberation!

Affluenza

[sl4shd0rk]

Sounds like the 1% has their own kind of epidemic going around

Re:Affluenza

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea. They have a lot more money than you .

Re:Or maybe...

[Deadstick]

That is a career ending move.

Not if she has any experience with duck calls.

Re:Political Correctness is Curse on America

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Welcome back to the Inquisition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mistakes will not be permitted.

Apologies will not be accepted.

ZERO TOLERANCE!!!

Forgiveness is weakness. Better ten thousand women lose their job then to have one Internet surfer be offended.

The smoke of burned souls is pleasing in God's nostrils, and the purpose of human organizations is to inflict suffering and damage on mankind through the systematic organization of hatreds.

Re:Don't feed the trolls nor troll to feed the mas

[fahrbot-bot]

Simple as that. Not every random thought you have is worth Tweeting, Facebooking, or whatever brand name to verb is out there.

But then why would Twitter and Facebook even exist?

[ and, technically, the noun to verb translation would be Twittering, but that's as just offensive as "Facebooking" - (shudder) ]

Re:Or maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, wait, you're doing exactly what the writer of TFA is warning against?
Congratulations! You've just completely validated his point in the most spectacular fashion.

The truth is

[Anonymous Coward]

she was 100% correct.

On a per capita basis, Africa *IS* the place to catch AIDS.

There is nothing racist about it.

South Africa - rape capital of the world

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.irinnews.org/report/99039/a-look-behind-the-statistics-of-south-africa-s-rape-epidemic

"South Africa has extremely high levels of sexual assault. “The prevalence of rape, and particularly multiple perpetrator rape is unusually high,” according to a 2012 report by the think-tank the Institute for Security Studies (ISS)."

Gee... I wonder why that would be...

South Africa - APE capital of the world

Re: Being fired was the correct response regardles

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "status whoring".

One way to top the competitor is to create a fake meme like heresy. Then you burn the witch. Liberals are disgusting hypocrites on race. Pontificating from leafy suburbs and secure toni-upper east side apartments about diversity? Do they even understand the contour of reality in Africa as it relates to HIV?

Bullshit

[wjcofkc]

As a PR rep she can talk shit both ways in whatever context and at whatever grade level. It doesn't make her tweet darkly sympathetic with an ironic twist. It just mean she is adept at talking shit. The fact that she did it at all demonstrates she is only vacantly aware in heart and mind. Kind of like what a sociopaths sense of humor would be like if they had one.

I'm only arguing that she is not as smart as you think and nothing else related to the overall discussion.

Yep

[koan]

if there's a fight or an accident people don't help any more they pull out their phones and viddy it, modern media + youth = sociopathy

Look No Further than The Daily Beast

[callmetheraven]

The reason she was fired (and I'm not saying I agree with it) is that one of IAC's customers is "The Daily Beast", a far-left webrag. The Daily Beast is a nonstop conveyor belt of feminist, socialist, and (anti white) racist propaganda. No surprise that the owners of such a site would insist that IAC lash out against Sacco. Libtard money talks.

Re:Look No Further than The Daily Beast

[dbIII]

She works for a PR company. She was doomed no matter who their clients are because it's seen as bad PR.

Re:Or maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only sharing the surname is true, but a familial relationship will the billionaire has not been verified.

OTOH, flying F and making a big deal about other stinky passengers implies she paid full fare, so chances are she is well off enough.

horses running, barn door soon to be closed

[PopeRatzo]

People who seek attention should not cry when they get their wish.

A peek at Ms Sacco's twitter stream shows that she was trying really really hard to have people pay attention to her.

Mission accomplished. If the story lasts another few days, she will be getting a reality TV show. If it doesn't last another few days, she will regret having tried so hard to make a spectacle of herself.

"Tweeted something incredibly racist"

[Runaway1956]

"Tweeted something incredibly racist"

FFS, I see comments that are moderately stupid, but nothing actually "racist". The "righteous mob" doesn't figure in here. The mob is just as stupid as the victim. It's pretty much a non-story, as far as racism goes.

There is not a man or a woman on this planet who hasn't said anything equally stupid in their lifetime. I have. You have. Samzenpuss has. Taco has. Obama has, and Bush has, both Clintons - every single man and woman on the planet.

The politically correct crowd thinks those tweets were incredibly racist? Actually, the politically correct crowd is incredibly stupid. Screw 'em.

I'm in complete agreement with the Mighty Martian here.

Sadly Google won't let it happen

[Anonymous Coward]

This problem is easy to fix, yet most people and companies are pushing in exactly the wrong direction to do so.
We need to promote anonymity on the internet. Doing so will do away with internet lynch mobs and "cyber bullying".

And she apologizes,

[no-body]

playing along with this idiocy?
Great company to have worked for, standing behind me like a rock and thanks a lot all you Twitter-Hyppocrites blowing up your egos showing your true face yet again!

There are no Africans on Twitter!

[Runaway1956]

Your post seems to presume that there are no Africans on any English language social media sites in the US or Europe.

FYI - I see nothing "racist" in those posts cited. I see some ignorance involved, based on some common misconceptions. Not racism.

"Projecting, much? Can't say I've ever cracked a racist joke about catching AIDS in Africa. I've never said the same or worse. The likelihood of saying the same or worse is pretty low for most normal people."

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4514373&cid=45587511

Implying that all car dealers are corrupt.

Oh, this is good! You believe that all Americans are entitled assholes. Thanks, Dude.

"Don't tell me. Some dude with a blackboard told you about impending dictatorship?

I find nothing as amusing as the rage of the entitled. You live in the most free society on Earth (or so you're fond of bragging anyway) but as soon as the party that you don't support takes power or your income tax bill goes up a little (it probably hasn't, by the way, Obama has lowered middle class taxes, you're welcome) you're crying about being "oppressed". Yeah, right. Try telling that to people who have been unable to oust their dictator for 30 years and got hit with tear gas, rubber bullets, live ammo, and speeding vehicles [youtube.com] when they tried to do something about it. Try telling that to people in other Middle Eastern countries who get the crap kicked out of them in the street when they protest about blatantly rigged elections. Try telling that to women marooned in Islamic theocratic dictatorships and prevented from going to school.

Americans being oppressed by their own government? Ha! Gimme a freaking break! Get out of your suburban bore-hole and travel a little in this world before you start complaining about the evils of government."

You have plenty of posts in which you belittle people whose opinions prove them to be "uneducated" by your standards.

You sound very much like a politically correct American liberal. Where are you from?

Re:There are no Africans on Twitter!

[fiannaFailMan]

Pointing out the corruption of car dealers is racist? I stopped reading at that point. Fuck you and the rest of the klan.

Re:There are no Africans on Twitter!

[Runaway1956]

Prejudice and bigotry are both necessary elements of racism. I've often observed that the most "liberal" people are the most intolerant. And, of course you stopped reading - as soon as one of you type sees or hears something they don't like, the revert into intolerance so strong that they no longer see or hear whatever it is that "offends" them.

Fuck me? Only in your dreams. I suppose that if you have a fetish about Klansmen, you can probably get some together for a marshmallow roast or something. They seem to be into that kind of stuff.

The Righteous Mob Isn't Powerful Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA still exists. Obama hasn't reinstated habeas corpus or closed Guantanamo. James Clapper hasn't been charged with perjury. Dick Cheney was never charged with war crimes or profiteering. The Righteous Mob needs to get their act together, be louder, and be more focused in expressing indignation.

Cory Doctoroww

[mrmeval]

Woofie indeed.

Your narcissistic utopia, not so utopian when exposed to real people.

R:nobody thought her comment was funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one did find her comments to be hilariously funny. But then, I'm white...

Let this be a lesson to the "wired" generation

[dbIII]

Sticking your real name on every random thing you do on the internet is an incredibly fucking stupid thing to do.

Isn't that what twitter is for?

[dbIII]

Doesn't a peek at nearly anyone's twitter stream shows that they are trying really really hard to have people pay attention to them?

Re:Isn't that what twitter is for?

[PopeRatzo]

Doesn't a peek at nearly anyone's twitter stream shows that they are trying really really hard to have people pay attention to them?

The difference is that Ms Sacco gets paid to get people to pay attention. She works for a public relations firm.

She showed a very poor grasp on relating to the public. Firing her was the merciful thing to do, because she's young enough to find a job as a barista, where she might learn to polish her public relations skills.

Sometimes

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Sometimes justice is also entertaining, witness Hog Farmer Reality Show ZZ-Top guy Show or whatever THAT was. Here, doing the Riight Thing is also amusing. I think at cocktail parties of a certain sort this is politely referred to as a "teachable moment".

That said, in this case it's not *just perfectly* clear the remark was meant to aggressively hurt anyone or was indicative of a truly racist mind. She wasn't saying Africans are X [bad thing] , she was saying that .. fuck... I actually have no idea what the fuck she was saying. Neither does she probably. Twitter's part 95% submerged iceberg taking down otherwise unsinkable titans and goddamn faux paus factory throttle wide open trying to meet demand of footless mouths everywhere.

Do as I do. Stay away.

Racist, It still could happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

I point to previous news articles a few years ago where people of influence take advantage of local lack of education. This almost resulted in reverse genocide by rape. News article in particular 'A Cure for Aids. Rape a white virgin'. This was condemned by the government in charge and a education program was put in place to address the problem. But still raise concerns to all nationalities and women in particular. So her remarks were actual the reverse of the headline, stating that thing have changed for the better in Africa.

Terrible summary, pretty poor article

[wonkey_monkey]

Another brilliant summary made my copying and pasting a couple of paragraphs from the middle of the story.

At the very least, you could have linked to an article that a) gave context to the story and b) quoted the actual comment which caused all the fuss in the first place.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25484537

Short version: dumb PR woman tweets "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white." Hilarity (and a sacking) ensues.

Re: Or maybe...

[statusbar]

A more interesting side to this story is how people were able to figure out which airport she was flying to just by googling her name: https://www.twitter.com/Zac_R/status/414249210641653761/photo/1?screen_name=Zac_R

I'm not sure how that was possible by google - but it sure is a creepy thing.

The person who made that tweet ( @Zac_R ) was apparently able to talk to Justine's father before she landed, and took the pictures of her at the airport:

https://www.twitter.com/Zac_R/status/414278786449158144

Re:Don't feed the trolls nor troll to feed the mas

[Anonymous Coward]

[ and, technically, the noun to verb translation would be Twittering, but that's as just offensive as "Facebooking" - (shudder) ]

People call it tweeting. For good or ill.

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

I had not heard about this! The whole thing is hilarious and I couldn't care less what internet mobs do to this person on the internet. Career destroyed? As it should be! She's not some dock worker loading boxes or customer support agent, she's a public relations douche.

Who says a Twitter debacle has to be about justice? Who says justice can't be entertainment?

I think this ignoramus just learned the old adage; she who lives by the sword dies by the sword. (For the stupid: Twitter is her sword.)

I think everything turned out just as it should have. Bonus: I am entertained.

So now we learn what PR is all about.

[bbsalem]

What astonishes me the most about the tweet is the stupidity in posting it, given the presumed background of the person posting it. She seems to have forgotten that posts on public social media can get legs despite the nave assumption that it may have been meant for only one or a couple of people, and if she posted it to get wider attention, she underestimated its pushback. That is the kind of mistake a newbee on social media makes, not a PR person who is presumed to have some knowledge of how the medium, of Tweeting, works to promote a message.

The lesson here is that the door swings both ways. She is in public relations to create interest in the opinions of her clients, and yet she seems to have at least momentarlly forgotten how this all works, how social media works, how social media thrives on the easy, the facile, on low hanging fruit, on the predictable reactions of people. This is the biggest mistake one could make, which I think is why she got fired, and she deserved it.

That said, the incident is really my entry into criticism I have of the whole idea of social media, not only the limitations of blogs, which I have talked about before, but the whole idea of media companies, special interests, and businesses driving all communication through social media. To that end I am pleased that one of the opinion makers got burned, because I'd like to see the whole practice get discredited for suppression of public discussion that leads to problem solving, in the name of propaganda and business profits. It doesn't matter who the culprets are, one of Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. etc. The flaw is the same, a few people who own social media outlets get to control discussion by setting topics and agnedas while leaving the public in blog comment form only, not discussion between themselves, really. The old USENET had a better media for people getting together and discussing and debating, which Slashdot has some of, but Slashdot is like social media in that its editorial staff controls which stories get out to a larger audience, and even though it supports context replies, which is a huge step forward, unless it supports something like a newsgroup hiererarchy, there will not be deep public discussions on it.

The people of the world need much more freedom to debate and have discussions than social media allows. Even though there are plenty of discussions on social media they don't go very deeply. Nothing about social media is nuanced, especially if what is needed is extensive analysis and problem solving. Most people who use social media avoid discussion and especially political ones, because it is too hard to add any depth, there is no useful structure to a blog and context is too easily lost.

There needs to be a topic hierarchy, sub-threads by topic, metrics for number of replies, length of messages, context reply, and filters. Some of this exists on Slashdot, none of it eixsts on most socila media sites. It is not a big part of any of the discussion frameworks out there for developer use, Drupal, WordPress, etc. There are some small efforts in that direction. It might even be good for someone to port a USENET newsreader to the web, not just a standalone client, but something that supports USENET style messages in a website. The hegimony of social media business, the desire to mine the text block of a blog post is what limits the adoption of more structure,

Re:Don't feed the trolls nor troll to feed the mas

[ndykman]

For the mindful, considerate subset of your thoughts you want to share with the world.

Yep, I couldn't make it through that sentence with out laughing either. Carry on, internet masses.

MLK

[NewYork]

A terrorist is a freedom fighter who isn't on your side.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/29/fbi-called-mlk-most-dangerous-negro-in-the-u-s-after-i-have-a-dream-speech/

worried

[Anonymous Coward]

Did she get aids? Would be a big blow after losing her job.

Here it is...

[Anonymous Coward]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BcFgb6cIYAAxj_l.jpg