How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life (article)



  • Excellent writeup about one of those people who made a stupid tweet that became popular and turned their life upside down.

    I'm wary about the popularity of twitter. No other online media has this kind of punch. A forum or Facebook post couldn't put its shoes on while a tweet circled the world. And it's all superficial, empty wit. Little redeeming quality that I see.

    Not sure what anyone can do about it, though.



  • @cartman82 said:

    Facebook post couldn't put its shoes on while a tweet circled the world.

    You might have to reread the linked article, especially the part about Lindsey Stone.

    @cartman82 said:

    Not sure what anyone can do about it, though.

    Don't post anything questionable online under real name.



  • @Gaska said:

    You might have to reread the linked article, especially the part about Lindsey Stone.

    Yeah but twitter was the engine of spreading this thing, not Facebook.

    @Gaska said:

    Don't post anything questionable online under real name.

    Increasingly things seem that way.



  • @Gaska said:

    @cartman82 said:
    Not sure what anyone can do about it, though.

    Don't post anything questionable online under real name.

    A tweet I liked once said something like “If all our employers knew what we did on here, nobody would have jobs”. I mean, there's a lot of stuff that people do or say that's just taboo, and it just seems weird that people are still getting punished for stuff that basically everyone does.

    The thing in that article that I'm hopeful about, are the cases where people who were once enthusiastic about attacking people online learnt why that wasn't such a good idea. Sure, that mostly seems to happen by them getting attacked themselves, which isn't great, but my hope is that people will eventually come to understand just how dangerous that whole thing is. I mean, twitter's still quite young, there's time for people to learn.



  • Much more likely, a different group of people start attacking the first group, who are attacking careless tweeters. That's how things usually go.



  • What a dumb fucking article.

    I mean, it gets the right concept - we live in a country where freedom of speech should be protected - and manages to twist it all around, painting a moron making a racist joke as a poor, oppressed for almost no reason woman, and people who rightfully got upset about it as some sort of evil tyrannical bullies who only wait to squash you when you even say a word.

    While the truth is, they have the exact same fucking right to get pissed as she had to even post the tweet in the first place.

    The whole article seems to have the vibe of "if you're many, you're wrong" - no matter what racist, misogynist, misandrist or misanthropic bullshit you post, you should expect a pat on the back and a cookie from everybody.

    @Gaska said:

    Don't post anything questionable online under real name.

    Or be prepared to defend what you post. I use pretty much my real life handle here. I stand by every word I said.


  • :belt_onion:

    I'm not a big fan of written communication anyway. It's too easy to get misunderstood, especially if you're telling a stupid joke that might get misunderstood as genuinely hateful. Twitter makes it even easier to fuck up, since you only have 140 characters to work with and have to compress everything down to that.

    To be fair, I didn't read the whole thing so I don't know how much of it was misunderstanding as opposed to genuine stupidity, but still, you won't be seeing me on Twitter, or at least not attempting the kind of jokes I sometimes post here. Hell, probably the main reason I post here is that, in general, potentially offensive jokes are the norm, and are assumed to be jokes initially. If I post something monumentally stupid I'll get trolled to hell and back, but at least I have the means of explaining myself. The whole Twitter format is a minefield if you decide to do anything more than post links.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    Or be prepared to defend what you post. I use pretty much my real life handle here. I stand by every word I said.

    Do you stand behind everything you have ever said in your life? Even during that teen phase when you were into emo poetry and Ayn Rand? To the point where you wouldn't mind that being the first thing someone finds when they google your name?



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    Or be prepared to defend what you post.

    Good luck doing that on Twitter. Especially with people who don't want to listen to anything you say.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Gaska said:

    Especially with people who don't want to listen to anything you say.

    Except the first misogynistic/misandric/racist/homophobic thing that you post that drew their attention...



  • You say that, but it's not hard for people who come from a different culture or subculture than you to go completely apeshit over. Like when dogboner did that stereotypical weird twitter joke about Neil deGrasse Tyson, or Prodigal Sam, the bland, inoffensive gateway-drug to twitter humor that it would be hard to find any fault with until a bunch of people decided to hop on the shame train just because he had more followers than them.

    The point is that it is literally impossible to act so politically correct that no faction would be willing to harass you into oblivion, just to make a point.



  • @PJH said:

    Except the first misogynistic/misandric/racist/homophobic thing that you post that drew their attention...

    Technically, it's someone else's post who accidentally stumbled upon and quoted your post is what draws the masses' attention.



  • I found this article, by the guy who initiated the hate campaign for Justine Sacco: http://gawker.com/justine-sacco-is-good-at-her-job-and-how-i-came-to-pea-1653022326

    It can be summarized as this:

    People don't realize that people on the other side of the internet are human beings until they see them in real life.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    painting a moron making a racist joke

    Having heard similar jokes from comedians, who are staunchly not racist, I find it quite easy to believe that she is high functioning enough to know that white people can get aids. I'm sure she has heard queen.



  • @cartman82 said:

    Do you stand behind everything you have ever said in your life? Even during that teen phase when you were into emo poetry and Ayn Rand? To the point where you wouldn't mind that being the first thing someone finds when they google your name?

    :moving_goal_post: ?

    Sure, it would be pretty moronic for anybody to think that whatever I wrote at the glorious age of 13 has any impact on my usefulness for what they need me for today, but yep, I typed the words, they appeared on the screen, I put them up for people to see, so I can reasonably expect to be called out for it. And probably admit I was wrong, since at that age I was wrong about lots of things.

    Also, I've never been into emo poetry, and I still give Ayn Rand more credit than most people, so there.

    @Gaska said:

    Good luck doing that on Twitter.

    Why would you want to defend yourself against a bunch of people who don't know you, whom you're very unlikely to meet, and whom you have no real reason to care for? I meant the situation when you actually do face real life problem - as in, your boss gets tired of angry mobs with pitchforks asking for you and threatens to fire you. That is a problem, not some random Twitter rage.

    @Buddy said:

    The point is that it is literally impossible to act so politically correct that no faction would be willing to harass you into oblivion, just to make a point.

    Look, I'm not saying it's not stupid to get offended over the smallest things. Sure it is. In an ideal world, people would just take a joke and move on. But there's a difference between it being kinda silly and it being pretty much morally reprehensible and totally evil, like this article wants us to believe.

    And frankly, it was a stupid joke.

    @algorythmics said:

    Having heard similar jokes from comedians, who are staunchly not racist, I find it quite easy to believe that she is high functioning enough to know that white people can get aids. I'm sure she has heard queen.

    When no context is given, assume stupidity. A comedian operates in a certain context, and generally to people who are unlikely to be offended. She's not a comedian, she's a senior director of a million-dollar company, writing to a billion or so of random people, and she should've known better.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    Why would you want to defend yourself against a bunch of people who don't know you, whom you're very unlikely to meet, and whom you have no real reason to care for?

    So they don't destroy your life?

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    I meant the situation when you actually do face real life problem - as in, your boss gets tired of angry mobs with pitchforks asking for you and threatens to fire you

    "Yeah, you have a point, but the internets hate you, so it's less of a financial burden for the company to just fire you than to try and repair your reputation (as in, our reputation)."


  • sockdevs

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    writing to a billion or so of random people

    before her tweet he had less than 200 followers (170 according to the article)



  • @Gaska said:

    "Yeah, you have a point, but the internets hate you, so it's less of a financial burden for the company to just fire you than to try and repair your reputation (as in, our reputation)."

    Well you did damage their reputation. Teh internetz are really no different than any other social situation - if you crack a vaguely racist joke at a meeting with the client and blow the sale, it might have been funny, but you're still finding yourself flying out of the company with your ass in front of you.

    Is the client at fault then, too?

    @accalia said:

    before her tweet he had less than 200 followers (170 according to the article)

    News flash: Twitter is a public place. The followers, AFAIR, only get notifications when you tweet, but everybody can view your profile.

    So the fact that she had 170 followers is entirely meaningless.


  • mod

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    When no context is given, assume stupidity. A comedian operates in a certain context, and generally to people who are unlikely to be offended. She's not a comedian, she's a senior director of a million-dollar company, writing to a billion or so of random people, and she should've known better.

    First:

    @accalia said:

    before her tweet he had less than 200 followers (170 according to the article)

    Second, the tweet likely had a certain context when viewed by her followers (with a group that size, probably just friends and family). Her followers probably understood that it was a joke, and probably knew her well enough to understand what she meant. It's when the writer from {whatever site it was} got hold of her tweet and took it out of context that her trouble began.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    News flash: Twitter is a public place. The followers, AFAIR, only get notifications when you tweet, but everybody can view your profile.

    Should she have been more careful on twitter? Absolutely. Are the twitter lynch mobs justifiable? Absolutely not.


  • sockdevs

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    So the fact that she had 170 followers is entirely meaningless.

    granted, you and I know that, but not everyone knows that.

    it's entirely possible that Ms Justine was not aware of that fact.



  • @accalia said:

    it's entirely possible that Ms Justine was not aware of that fact.

    Well that just proves my point of her being of... well, less than stellar intelligence, apparently.

    @abarker said:

    Second, the tweet likely had a certain context when viewed by her followers (with a group that size, probably just friends and family). Her followers probably understood that it was a joke, and probably knew her well enough to understand what she meant.

    I kinda find it hard to believe given the joke, but okay, let's even give her the benefit of the doubt and say she's randomly launching into her bestworst George Carlin impression in conversation, because well, she does that.

    Her tweet was still visible by like a billion of people or so. Who did not have that context. So it really boils down to "she posted stupid shit at a public forum and got called out for it, perhaps pretty harsh, but that's life, folks".

    @abarker said:

    Are the twitter lynch mobs justifiable? Absolutely not.

    You're basically denying people the right to get pissed.

    I'm all for not getting offended by shit people say, but it's not the case for most people, and you should be aware of it.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    Teh internetz are really no different than any other social situation - if you crack a vaguely racist joke at a meeting with the client and blow the sale, it might have been funny, but you're still finding yourself flying out of the company with your ass in front of you.

    Except it wasn't meant to be racist at all - quite the opposite. In real life, you do have chance to explain yourself.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    You're basically denying people the right to get pissed.

    And they're denying the right to defend yourself. Also, death threats.


  • sockdevs

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Well that just proves my point of her being of... well, less than stellar intelligence, apparently.

    i'll agree to her being ignorant of the social and public nature of twitter, but i know many people who are in every non computer respect absolutely brilliant, but that do not understand computers or how the internet works.


  • mod

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    You're basically denying people the right to get pissed.

    I'm all for not getting offended by shit people say, but it's not the case for most people, and you should be aware of it.

    I have no problem with people getting pissed. But the IRL equivalent of what happens now on Twitter is a lynch mob. Do you know what lynch mobs were? The mob would get riled up about someone - either for a real or imagined offense - the mob would drag that person out of their home, and then the mob would dispense "justice" - tar and feather, hanging, dragging behind a horse, etc.

    Again, people can get pissed, but calling for someone to get fired because of a comment you pull out of context? Sending death threats? Aiming the press and the world at a person because of a single misguided tweet? Not even allowing the person a chance at a defense? Sounds like a lynch mob.



  • What surprises me it that the employers fire these people every time. They even have a few days to think about it, and they still fire them. The twitter mob can't physically hurt anyone, those that act on their behalf are the ones that should be held accountable.


  • sockdevs

    @abarker said:

    Again, people can get pissed, but calling for someone to get fired because of a comment you pull out of context? Sending death threats? Aiming the press and the world at a person because of a single misguided tweet? Not even allowing the person a chance at a defense? Sounds like a lynch mob.

    QFFT



  • from the article: ...the collective fury felt righteous, powerful and effective. It felt as if hierarchies were being dismantled, as if justice were being democratized.

    The phrase "democratized justice" strikes me as being essentially "mob justice". And yet it still sounded like a good thing at the time.

    Pictured: modern social media



  • @Gaska said:

    Except it wasn't meant to be racist at all - quite the opposite. In real life, you do have chance to explain yourself.

    Not always, no. If you cracked that joke in any serious situation, you'd be kicked out of the room before you could say "sorry guys".

    And how would you tell it wasn't meant to be racist? There's zero indication of sarcasm, or anything, it might just as well be taken at face value. Honestly, I can't even find the way to twist it into "totally against racism" statement.

    @Gaska said:

    And they're denying the right to defend yourself.

    Do you expect a chance to defend yourself in any situation? Do you honestly think the Internet lynch mobs are the only group of people who will get pissed before you get a chance of explaining yourself, and won't be interested in listening to whatever you have to say afterwards?

    @Gaska said:

    Also, death threats.

    Which are a matter for the court and should be decided on individual basis, without pouring the baby out with the bathwater and expecting nobody to say anything.

    @accalia said:

    i'll agree to her being ignorant of the social and public nature of twitter, but i know many people who are in every non computer respect absolutely brilliant, but that do not understand computers or how the internet works.

    So? I really fail to see how that justifies anything.

    Also, she's apparently a director of communications at a company which, among other things, manages a social networking website. You'd really expect someone like that to know better.

    @abarker said:

    Again, people can get pissed, but calling for someone to get fired because of a comment you pull out of context? Sending death threats? Aiming the press and the world at a person because of a single misguided tweet? Not even allowing the person a chance at a defense? Sounds like a lynch mob.

    Except a lynch mob generally stands at your doors with torches and pitchforks waiting to stick both up your ass. Here, you have people... talking. And getting angry. And maybe even calling for someone to smite the bastard. But that lynch mob really lacks actual lynching. They're not really doing anything aside from voicing their opinion, which they have each and every right to. (Well, except for death threats, as stated above).

    And again, you don't always get a chance at a defense, not only with the evil Internet lynch mobs. Life sucks. Move on.


  • sockdevs

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    So? I really fail to see how that justifies anything.

    so her actions are exactly as justified as that of the e-lynch mob's

    which is completely ant totally not justified.

    at least a reasonable human explanation exists for her actions, i have yet to see one put forward about the e-lynch mob's actions.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    You'd really expect someone like that to know better.

    i would, yes but to err is human.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    And again, you don't always get a chance at a defense, not only with the evil Internet lynch mobs. Life sucks. Move on.

    maybe we should work on making it suck less.

    /me starts penning a picket poster reading: Reduce world-suck!



  • @accalia said:

    so her actions are exactly as justified as that of the e-lynch mob's

    which is completely ant totally not justified.

    So we at least agree on that, except I think both sides had the right to do what they did.

    @accalia said:

    i have yet to see one put forward about the e-lynch mob's actions.

    People saw an offensive thing and got offended. Duh.

    @accalia said:

    i would, yes but to err is human.

    And to see consequences of your mistakes is just as human too.


  • sockdevs

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    So we at least agree on that, except I think both sides had the right to do what they did.

    so we are completely diametrically opposed in our position then...... and that's agreeing?



  • @accalia said:

    so we are completely diametrically opposed in our position then...... and that's agreeing?

    Good enough for me?

    We agree that both sides are roughly on the same level, it seems.


  • sockdevs

    ok. that much i'll agree to.

    i won't agree that either side was justified in their actions, but unless the courts take an interest that at least is a moot point.



  • @Bort said:

    The phrase "democratized justice" strikes me as being essentially "mob justice". And yet it still sounded like a good thing at the time.

    Yeah, that's what democracy is, at its core.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    But that lynch mob really lacks actual lynching.

    Dude, c'mon. Even @darkmatter wouldn't troll that argument as convincing. Are you really lowering yourself to blakey levels of aggressive illiteracy?


  • mod

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    And maybe even calling for someone to smite the bastard. But that lynch mob really lacks actual lynching. They're not really doing anything aside from voicing their opinion, ...except for death threats

    And hounding people at their homes places of work, and making sure people were there to live tweet when this woman landed, and …


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said:

    Even @darkmatter wouldn't troll that argument as convincing. Are you really lowering yourself to blakey levels of aggressive illiteracy?

    He's right, I guess. I don't think I'd take the word lynch mob at its literal meaning anytime after, I dunno, 1975?



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    writing to a billion or so of random people

    I don't buy this. When I write stupid shit here I know that 99.99% of the time it's going to be read by 20-100 people. However one of those people might decide to be a dick, look at the exif data and post my employer, and then another dick might decide to phone my employer and tell them that I prefer to use blood as lubricant for anal sex and suddenly my promotion prospects don't look so sexy.

    Twitter is exactly like this forum, my tweet is only viewable in any meaningful sense if you follow me. That's a hundred or so people in most of the quoted stories. 99.99% of the time only those people (usually who are friends) will ever see what they say. Only when people search it out (much like my posts here) is it actually public.

    You can't lay the blame at these people's feet for the context being ignored. In all cases the context was there. It was just ignored by the blood beying mass. This is the same motives and behaviour as gamergate but for people who don't like video games and or want to feel morally superior whilst being morally bankrupt.

    Fuck all of them in the ass using aforementioned lubricating preferences


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @boomzilla said:

    Yeah, that's what democracy is, at its core.

    That is really the root etymology. Demos = mob, kratia = rule or power. At some point in the past, demos was changed to mean "the people", but what I have read puts the original translation as "mob rule".

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Not always, no. If you cracked that joke in any serious situation, you'd be kicked out of the room before you could say "sorry guys".

    Since when is Twiiter a "serious situation"? It has more dick jokes than Cracked.com. Nothing in this story indicates that it was a "serious situation", and no one in their right mind would see it as such. Hell, I have made jokes a lot worse than that among friends, and if you have a small number of followers as she did, you can wager that they are all friends or acquaintances.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    And how would you tell it wasn't meant to be racist?

    I like to attempt to see the best in people. I don't immediately assume that anyone who makes an off-color comment is a racist asshole. If you are wrong, give them the benefit of the doubt and if you are wrong they will show you that you are wrong.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    There's zero indication of sarcasm, or anything, it might just as well be taken at face value.

    Not every statement requires an emoji... ;)

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Honestly, I can't even find the way to twist it into "totally against racism" statement.

    Then you just aren't looking hard enough or even giving it a second's worth of thought. I am the whitest person you will ever meet, and I think that ebonics is bastardization of the English language. When I meet the guys at the bar for a drink and greet them with, "Whaddup mothafucka?", it is not because I have gotten in touch with my gangster side. I am making a joke, because that type of speech is the antithesis of how I usually speak.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Do you expect a chance to defend yourself in any situation?

    Yes. Internet lynch mobs do not care about intent or nuance though. They just want to go all SJW on any perceived slight.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Do you honestly think the Internet lynch mobs are the only group of people who will get pissed before you get a chance of explaining yourself, and won't be interested in listening to whatever you have to say afterwards?

    No, but they are the only ones that have the reach that they do. If I make a stupid joke in front of some random asshole in public, they might go home and bitch to their spouse. If you do it on Twitter, they might ruin your shit.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Except a lynch mob generally stands at your doors with torches and pitchforks waiting to stick both up your ass. Here, you have people... talking. And getting angry. And maybe even calling for someone to smite the bastard. But that lynch mob really lacks actual lynching. They're not really doing anything aside from voicing their opinion, which they have each and every right to.

    Yes, they have a right to. That does not mean that they are not fucking assholes for blowing shit out of proportion. There are lots of things that I have the right to do that would also lead people to think I am a reprehensible asshole. That does not make them right. Just because you can do something does not mean you should do something. People's lives are being ruined over one single misstep on Twitter by alarmist SJW assholes.



  • @Polygeekery said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Yeah, that's what democracy is, at its core.

    That is really the root etymology. Demos = mob, kratia = rule or power. At some point in the past, demos was changed to mean "the people", but what I have read puts the original translation as "mob rule".

    That's also why the Founding Fathers wanted a republican form of government; they were actually afraid of democracy, at least to some extent. That's why the controversial Electoral College exists. That's why Senators were originally elected by state legislatures, not directly by the citizens of the states.



  • @abarker said:

    And hounding people at their homes places of work, and making sure people were there to live tweet when this woman landed, and …

    Look, what the article did is basically getting a frankly boring narrative ("someone tweets something stupid, people get upset"), and turn it into a heartbreaking narrative of how a poor crystal-clear woman gets her life ruined by evil mob of people just waiting to screw her in every way imaginable.

    While totally disregarding that they did have a reason to be outraged. And she managed to get enough people outraged to actually face consequences of being a liability at her job. Are you seriously trying to pin the blame for that on people who simply got pissed off at what pissed them off? Are you simply not allowed to voice your disagreement with anything, because oh God, what happens if other people do so too and the poor moron who posted that loses their job?

    Frankly, I don't care. If something annoys me, I have the right to voice my annoyance.

    @algorythmics said:

    Twitter is exactly like this forum, my tweet is only viewable in any meaningful sense if you follow me.

    Bullshit. This forum has an obvious theme of people butting their heads and posting stupid stuff for the sake of it. It's like a comedy club - it doesn't matter what the context is, if you enter and see someone yelling racist things, you're supposed to assume it's a part of the gig.

    Twitter is like a town square. If you yell racist things there, I have every right to assume you're a nutjob and not inquire into your biography.

    @Polygeekery said:

    Hell, I have made jokes a lot worse than that among friends, and if you have a small number of followers as she did, you can wager that they are all friends or acquaintances.

    You're not among friends on Twitter. You're among everyone, even if you're talking to your friends. It doesn't even take a lynch mob of any size - it would be enough for her to try and change her job, and the future employer checking her out on Twitter and seeing the "lolz I'm white" post.

    @Polygeekery said:

    I like to attempt to see the best in people.

    I don't particularly agree with this. I tend to take things at face value unless indicated otherwise. And at face value, it's just a terribly offensive joke.

    @Polygeekery said:

    Not every statement requires an emoji...

    If it's obvious from the context. I never use emoji here, and everybody gets me, because this place has a particular context associated by it. In this case, there's no context of the place, not much of a personal one, and frankly I've taken it at face value at first.

    @Polygeekery said:

    When I meet the guys at the bar for a drink and greet them with, "Whaddup mothafucka?", it is not because I have gotten in touch with my gangster side. I am making a joke, because that type of speech is the antithesis of how I usually speak.

    But you do agree it wouldn't necessarily be taken as a joke if you said it to a random black person on the street? Context, again. The bar guys know you, random black guy doesn't.

    @Polygeekery said:

    They just want to go all SJW on any perceived slight.

    Not disagreeing. But SJWing is not outlawed or even reprehensible, just kinda silly, and you have the right to be silly.

    @Polygeekery said:

    No, but they are the only ones that have the reach that they do. If I make a stupid joke in front of some random asshole in public, they might go home and bitch to their spouse. If you do it on Twitter, they might ruin your shit.

    Or they can complain on the local TV. Or yell at you in the crowd. Or their spouse can actually be your manager who will recognize you from the description. That random guy has just as many ways to ruin your shit if he tried.

    @Polygeekery said:

    Yes, they have a right to. That does not mean that they are not fucking assholes for blowing shit out of proportion.

    And she's a fucking asshole for posting this kind of shit and thinking "gee, I'll get so many twitterpointzz with my witty disestabilishmentarianist tweet that so cleverly subverts the usual notion of racism" instead of taking a few seconds to think how it would be perceived.

    @Polygeekery said:

    Just because you can do something does not mean you should do something.

    And the opposite is also true. Just because you shouldn't do something, it doesn't mean you can't, or even that it's wrong. Would the world be a better place if nobody got offended? Sure. Does it mean it's wrong to be offended? Not quite, it's a natural reaction, and to be honest I wouldn't expect anything else.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    And how would you tell it wasn't meant to be racist? There's zero indication of sarcasm, or anything, it might just as well be taken at face value.

    Poe's law again.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Honestly, I can't even find the way to twist it into "totally against racism" statement.

    Bro do you even read? The article explains the OP's stance several times.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Do you expect a chance to defend yourself in any situation?

    As much as I expect to be able to get pissed in any situation. You were the one who started the "denying the right" thing FFS.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Which are a matter for the court and should be decided on individual basis, without pouring the baby out with the bathwater and expecting nobody to say anything.

    If you think about it, the racist post should also be a matter for the court. Instead, the Twitter mob poured poor Justine out with the bathwater and they're proud of it.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Except a lynch mob generally stands at your doors with torches and pitchforks waiting to stick both up your ass. Here, you have people... talking. And getting angry. And maybe even calling for someone to smite the bastard. But that lynch mob really lacks actual lynching. They're not really doing anything aside from voicing their opinion, which they have each and every right to.

    Yet they managed to successfully destroy her life.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    Just because you shouldn't do something, it doesn't mean you can't, or even that it's wrong.

    Actually, if you shouldn't do something, then it is wrong by definition.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Or their spouse can actually be your manager who will recognize you from the description.

    Not likely...



  • Not even in a democracy you get mob justice. There's actual people appointed to judge others, and they're usually trusted to be exemplary people who study a lot. You know why? Because mobs are fucking dumb.



  • @Gaska said:

    Actually, if you shouldn't do something, then it is wrong by definition.

    You shouldn't stuff yourself full of hamburgers every day, but it's not wrong per se. Just stupid.

    @Polygeekery said:

    Not likely...

    That was the, uh, "peasant 'you'"? As in "not 'you' you", but... eh, you get the drill.

    @Gaska said:

    Bro do you even read? The article explains the OP's stance several times.

    As "lolwut I totally didn't know someone might not get my clever subversion of the joke"? I rest my case.

    @Gaska said:

    As much as I expect to be able to get pissed in any situation.

    And you can do both in any situation. The results, on the other hand, might differ depending on the situation.

    @Gaska said:

    If you think about it, the racist post should also be a matter for the court.

    Wha... how? You have no right to make a racist joke in the US? As in, the FBI whacks your door at 6AM, or what? Man, and I thought my country was shit.

    Seriously though, if that happened, I'd be glad to defend on this case.

    @Gaska said:

    Yet they managed to successfully destroy her life.

    Just like if you piss off an important client, you get fired. Did the client ruin your life then, or did you fucking bring it on yourself?

    @Gaska said:

    poor Justine

    my ass.

    @dstopia said:

    Because mobs are fucking dumb.

    'Course they are. But pray tell, what kind of "justice" did they actually enact other than screaming a lot? You're saying it as if the "mob" fired her from the job, or actually did anything at all, when all they did was give the stupid joke lots of attention, because well, that's how a gossip works, on the Internet or otherwise.



  • @algorythmics said:

    99.99% of the time only those people (usually who are friends) will ever see what they say.

    Even then, most of them probably aren't looking at their feed most of the time, and a lot of stuff goes by without getting read.



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    That's also why the Founding Fathers wanted a republican form of government; they were actually afraid of democracy, at least to some extent. That's why the controversial Electoral College exists. That's why Senators were originally elected by state legislatures, not directly by the citizens of the states.

    And one role of the Feds is to guarantee a republican form of government in each state.



  • @Onyx said:

    Twitter makes it even easier to fuck up, since you only have 140 characters to work with and have to compress everything down to that.

    Now I am become Twitter, destroyer of words.

    The views, opinions and positions expressed by the author in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions and positions of the author of this post.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Polygeekery said:

    Since when is Twiiter a "serious situation"? It has more dick jokes than Cracked.com.

    Huh. I just see serious professional communication in it. You must be interested in following people mainly for their ability to make dick jokes…


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.