Justine Sacco, Internet Justice, and the Dangers of a Righteous Mob 399
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."
Fantastic summary! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Why so much butthurt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Was anyone actually offended by her remark?
Or do people just like being outraged?
Re:Why so much butthurt? (Score:5, Funny)
This comment offends me.
Re:Why so much butthurt? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Heat map = population map (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe its just that the majority of twitter users come from Europe or North America.
Re:Why so much butthurt? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
So only the victims of racism should be offended by racism?
Well there is this thing in legal theory called "standing" [wikipedia.org]. 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: (Score:3, Funny)
There once was a man named Rex
With an extremely small organ of sex
And he said with composure
When arrested for exposure [wikipedia.org]
De minimis non curat lex [wikipedia.org]
"De minimis" is not exactly the same thing as standing but I see your point.
Re: (Score:3)
Still waiting for the explanation where one's feelings towards something isn't valid unless it fits into jurisprudence, but okay.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
It must feel good to hop on these bandwagons of 'righteousness'!
Re: (Score:3)
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 mea
Re:Why so much butthurt? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Kak, boet.
Re:Why so much butthurt? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
That, and lets not forget:
http://xkcd.com/386/ [xkcd.com]
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 [reuters.com]
There is a clear potential for her being wrong about whiteness causing rational behaviour or something similar. While some might argue that often
Re: (Score:3)
I bet it's good to know you are better than all those people.
Re: (Score:3)
People like being outraged when they are insulated from others. It's a typical, "Mee too ZOMG!" online reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
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 sor
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Why so much butthurt? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The author has a couple of good points. (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Ummm... (Score:5, Insightful)
People get off on blood sports and mob violence, this is the mostly-legal and really easy flavor.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 hum
Seriously? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd feel sorry for your not getting /. right, but I'm not dyslexic!
Re: Seriously? (Score:2)
Of course you don't, that's why you proudly posted using your name right?
Context? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it really too much to ask for the "summary" to actually provide even the tiniest morsel of context?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Context? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
Most black women get AIDS from black men who were infected while in prison by engaging in homosexual activity.
What kind of summary is this? (Score:3)
This might be the worst "summary" I've ever seen on slashdot.
Re:What kind of summary is this? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What kind of summary is this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
How did a bozo like that get an executive PR gig? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another Case of Poe's Law? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [buzzfeed.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
The irony is that you seem to believe you have intimate knowledge of what his intended meaning was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re:Another Case of Poe's Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 "Goi
Re: (Score:3)
...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: (Score:2)
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.
In the old days (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
The small-town phenomenom (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Stupid article, stupid author (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Stupid article, stupid author (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Vapid (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't we use MOD points on articles yet? Maybe we could collectively bring the quality up a little.
Re: (Score:2)
Allowing moderators to moderate the articles themselves would be an admission that the Slashdot editors aren't very good at what they do.
News Flash! (Score:3)
(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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street. (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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) ]
Live by the crowd, die by the crowd (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 (apparentl
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Note: Twitter is public (Score:3)
Why people seem to forget that twitter is PUBLIC is crazy.
Mob or no mob, this was DUMB (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 prof
Who ? What ? (Score:4, Insightful)
What if she hates what is going on there? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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?
l
Instead of moderation (Score:2)
Instead of moderation, we have a mob.
Affluenza (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like the 1% has their own kind of epidemic going around
Re:Or maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
And never get another one again. Unless it's PR spokesperson for the KKK.
Re:Or maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Or maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That is a career ending move.
Not if she has any experience with duck calls.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd support her, if she was anything other then a flack in the first place.
Professional bullshitters have to do better then this.
Re: (Score:2)
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.