Microballing: Steve Ballmer's LA Clippers

[uncannymanny]

I don't think an auditorium full of people sitting shoulder to shoulder necessarily qualifies as private, especially when you're there specifically representing your employer, but I definitely agree with the overall sentiment.

How about this one? I'd like to punch these fuckwads in the throat: http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/23/5643396/conversnitch-spying-lamp-tweeting-new-yorkers-conversations

 

[ZP1]

One, only one guy got fired and it was largely understood to be pretextual. Two, the person who raised a shitfit was let go from her company. Three, the tech industry is so violently hostile towards women that I am entirely okay with a certain amount of care taken to not chase away the ones who choose to work in tech.

And they did deserve to be lit up, because if you're basically fucking professional you don't fucking do that in a professional context. PyCon is nothing but a professional context.

 
No one is arguing that the jokes they made weren't dumb. The argument is entirely based around the idea on whether or not it's a good thing that mob justice can suddenly decide to deprive someone of their livelihood for a one-off dumb remark that someone overheard and took offense to.  And note too, that it's possible in these situations for someone to overhear something in the wrong context and come away with the wrong idea entirely.   Meaning that someone can get crucified in the court of public opinion (lose job, reputation, etc) for something that they didn't even actually say.   Using this particular case as an example,  what if the circumstances were different and the lady completely misheard the conversation that those two guys were having? What if they denied her claims? Odds are high that the guy who got fired still would have gotten fired despite the lack of proof. 
 
I mean, maybe I'm just behind the times, but I don't get where the impetus is to deal out life destroying damage to the guy in the tech case for merely making an idiotic joke.  Especially when rightly or wrongly his only intended recipient of the joke was his other friend that he was with.   The scale and scope of the damage that an individual takes when the mob justice train gets rolling is unbelievably massive.  If penalties were proportionate to the crime, the worst that guy should have faced would be something along the lines of HR mandated sensitivity training.  Instead, he was fired and likely had a great deal of trouble securing another job in the immediate aftermath.   Who knows what effect that ended up having on his marriage? His kids?  Any other responsibilities he might have had?   But hey, the mob justice machine got another trophy head in favor of their intended cause, so who really cares what happened to that guy.  
 
Holding people accountable for their actions is one thing. But the power of public opinion to crush people who's only crime might be saying or doing something dumb at one time is unbelievably scary.  Metaphorically, people can commit an offense akin to jaywalking and end up getting the social death penalty for it.  I can't see how anyone can support that as a good thing in the long term.  

 

[Montana Fan]

Who really cares if the NBA was/is disingenuous about its reasons?

Bomani Jones. It figures that you'd do us all a service by posting that conversation and follow it up with a dose of your stupid.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

 
No one is arguing that the jokes they made weren't dumb. The argument is entirely based around the idea on whether or not it's a good thing that mob justice can suddenly decide to deprive someone of their livelihood for a one-off dumb remark that someone overheard and took offense to.  And note too, that it's possible in these situations for someone to overhear something in the wrong context and come away with the wrong idea entirely.   Meaning that someone can get crucified in the court of public opinion (lose job, reputation, etc) for something that they didn't even actually say.   Using this particular case as an example,  what if the circumstances were different and the lady completely misheard the conversation that those two guys were having? What if they denied her claims? Odds are high that the guy who got fired still would have gotten fired despite the lack of proof. 
 
I mean, maybe I'm just behind the times, but I don't get where the impetus is to deal out life destroying damage to the guy in the tech case for merely making an idiotic joke.  Especially when rightly or wrongly his only intended recipient of the joke was his other friend that he was with.   The scale and scope of the damage that an individual takes when the mob justice train gets rolling is unbelievably massive.  If penalties were proportionate to the crime, the worst that guy should have faced would be something along the lines of HR mandated sensitivity training.  Instead, he was fired and likely had a great deal of trouble securing another job in the immediate aftermath.   Who knows what effect that ended up having on his marriage? His kids?  Any other responsibilities he might have had?   But hey, the mob justice machine got another trophy head in favor of their intended cause, so who really cares what happened to that guy.  
 
Holding people accountable for their actions is one thing. But the power of public opinion to crush people who's only crime might be saying or doing something dumb at one time is unbelievably scary.  Metaphorically, people can commit an offense akin to jaywalking and end up getting the social death penalty for it.  I can't see how anyone can support that as a good thing in the long term.  

 
To me, the operative word in Blacken's post was "unprofessional." If someone gets caught being exceedingly so in the manner you're describing, it doesn't bother me to see that person lose their job, and I don't see it as "mob justice." In the past, that sort of institutional queasiness toward holding people accountable is what fostered racism, sexism, homophobia, etc etc institutionally. In the past it was "well, you're gonna have to deal with it, he's a good employee/ I don't know if we want to go that far." That's unfair. We've gone from basically a message of "we're not too worried about it" to actually having consequences for it. Living knowing that if someone behaved that way in the workplace, possibly at your expense and the expense of your career, that no one would really care is the actual problem. Maybe this new approach tickles your unfairness zone, but personally I'm 100% fine with that. It feels unfair because it's been much more unfair in the opposite direction forever.
 
This is the world we live in. Those are currently the stakes for saying something hateful toward or about others--society, increasingly, will shun the shit out of you. And I don't know, I don't really worry about myself saying "something dumb" off the cuff in that way or whatever. If I do, I'd deserve what I got.
 
One more thing--this whole "brave new world" some are wringing their hands over like it's this creeping reality via technology and our increased connectivity: it was a creeping reality ~10 years ago. It's here. This isn't a new phenomena. This is fully the world we live in.

 

[JayMags71]

Yeah, I understand.  I'm uncomfortable with some of the hoopla surrounding the "takedown" and I'm trying to figure out why myself.  Sterling can, as the Onion put it, go off and die. I don't care about rich racists as a group.  But I do care about how we treat each other, the accused and the accusers, and the way this kind of conversation is had in general.

Well said. I agree with you in a general sense. However, I don't believe Sterling was particularly "hard done by" in this instance. As I said before, I find it rather telling that Sterling hasn't commented publicly. Even if he were concerned with a lawsuit to fight his punishment, usually you see a boilerplate "that's not who I usually am" apology issued in some form or another. I find the absence of any further remarks rather striking. I'm willing to admit I may be missing something.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

Well said. I agree with you in a general sense. However, I don't believe Sterling was particularly "hard done by" in this instance. As I said before, I find it rather telling that Sterling hasn't commented publicly. Even if he were concerned with a lawsuit to fight his punishment, usually you see a boilerplate "that's not who I usually am" apology issued in some form or another. I find the absence of any further remarks rather striking. I'm willing to admit I may be missing something.

 
That's part of what I'm seeing too--not that instances like these can never raise such questions, but that this one is so rare: baldfaced racism and hatred with no contrition, no shades of gray to the story. Sure these events can exist on a slippery slope, but I just straight out don't see it here. I think this one is sort of cut-and-dried as far as someone behaving in a way the community won't tolerate and then taking appropriate and somewhat symbolic action.
 
That said, agreed totally with dirtynine's quoted sentiment there, well put.

 

[uncannymanny]

 
To me, the operative word in Blacken's post was "unprofessional." If someone gets caught being exceedingly so in the manner you're describing, it doesn't bother me to see that person lose their job, and I don't see it as "mob justice." In the past, that sort of institutional queasiness toward holding people accountable is what fostered racism, sexism, homophobia, etc etc institutionally. In the past it was "well, you're gonna have to deal with it, he's a good employee/ I don't know if we want to go that far." That's unfair. We've gone from basically a message of "we're not too worried about it" to actually having consequences for it. Living knowing that if someone behaved that way in the workplace, possibly at your expense and the expense of your career, that no one would really care is the actual problem. Maybe this new approach tickles your unfairness zone, but personally I'm 100% fine with that. It feels unfair because it's been much more unfair in the opposite direction forever.
 
This is the world we live in. Those are currently the stakes for saying something hateful toward or about others--society, increasingly, will shun the shit out of you. And I don't know, I don't really worry about myself saying "something dumb" off the cuff in that way or whatever. If I do, I'd deserve what I got.
 
One more thing--this whole "brave new world" some are wringing their hands over like it's this creeping reality via technology and our increased connectivity: it was a creeping reality ~10 years ago. It's here. This isn't a new phenomena. This is fully the world we live in.

All of this. I didn't feel bad for that guy then and I don't now (nor the woman when her background of behavior was brought out after the incident). If the crushing oppression we have to suffer is that insensitive assholes get their comeuppance, well I guess I'm not all that worried about it.

And yes, I expect that if I act like an unprofessional ass while representing my company and get caught that there's every chance I'll get fired. And that's why I don't do that.

Lastly, as far as the internet mob ganging up on people is concerned, I don't think this is something you have to worry about if you're trashing Apple Geniuses or the latest Michael Bay crapfest. These 2 specific examples are ones where there is likely to be outrage (and rightfully so); an idiotic boob makes a stupid comment in a context where TONS of people are invested and give a shit: AAs in sports and women in tech.

 

[dirtynine]

To use another tech example, a similar thing just happened to the guy tapped to run Mozilla.  He didn't say anything; it was simply unearthed that as a private citizen he once gave money to support Prop 8.  Obviously many did not like that; after a weeklong social media firestorm, his resignation was accepted.  I happen to oppose laws like Prop 8, and I welcome the advancement of same-sex rights.  But what happened didn't sit right with me at all.  (Read Andrew Sullivan's take for more introspection on that particular case).   I think that was fresh in mind when the next pile-on, which happened to be a much more straightforward case in Sterling, happened. 
 
It just so happens that now NBA owners' views on same sex rights are being scrutinized; what will/should the league do?  How about other private institutions - are precedents being set in that regard? In what circumstances is a person allowed to have personal beliefs that others don't like? Sterling's case is not a conundrum; it's basically a slam dunk. But it's what's next that concerns me.  

 

[dcmissle]

You and ZP1 are killing it right now. Our high tech, instantaneous lynch mobs are a societal disaster.

 

[ZP1]

 
 
This is the world we live in. Those are currently the stakes for saying something hateful toward or about others--society, increasingly, will shun the shit out of you. And I don't know, I don't really worry about myself saying "something dumb" off the cuff in that way or whatever. If I do, I'd deserve what I got.

 
Lets cut directly to this since really the entire argument is about punishment here. In the first tech guy example, the guys main crime was saying a joke (note: not even a hateful one) that was perceived to be in bad taste by a member of the opposite sex. A joke which was not meant in malice, and wasn't even intended for the other person to hear. The direct punishment for that was: 
 
1.) Loss of Job
 
2.) Loss of income derived from job. 
 
3.) Massive hit to reputation
 
4.) Significant barriers erected preventing him from finding another job due to his recent ill gotten status. 
 
Indirect Punishment for that of which *could* be likely but we have no knowledge of as a result of the above: 
 
1.) Potential ruination of his marriage
 
2.) Potential loss of custody of his kids
 
3.) Potential permanent loss in earning ability which could reduce his standard of living for the rest of his life. 
 
I'm sorry, but at what point is enough, enough?  Punishment needs to fit the crime, and condemning what could otherwise be an honest and decent man for making an off taste joke (intended to a single friend no less)  that someone was offended by is nothing short of insanity.  You're basically advocating for the complete and utter destruction of someone's life for a moment's slip of a tongue. Progressing society and making people more tolerant/sensitive are all great ideals, but trying to enforce those values via a slash/burn mob mentality nature isn't the right way. Destroying someone's life because they said a comment that someone else found offensive at a singular point in time isn't moral nor right.  
 
 

To use another tech example, a similar thing just happened to the guy tapped to run Mozilla.  He didn't say anything; it was simply unearthed that as a private citizen he once gave money to support Prop 8.  Obviously many did not like that; after a weeklong social media firestorm, his resignation was accepted.  I happen to oppose laws like Prop 8, and I welcome the advancement of same-sex rights.  But what happened didn't sit right with me at all.  (Read Andrew Sullivan's take for more introspection on that particular case).   I think that was fresh in mind when the next pile-on, which happened to be a much more straightforward case in Sterling, happened. 
 
It just so happens that now NBA owners' views on same sex rights are being scrutinized; what will/should the league do?  How about other private institutions - are precedents being set in that regard? In what circumstances is a person allowed to have personal beliefs that others don't like? Sterling's case is not a conundrum; it's basically a slam dunk. But it's what's next that concerns me.  

 
What happened to the Mozilla guy is all sorts of screwed up.  I'm all for marriage equality, and often argue with people who I tend to think are pretty hypocritical when they attempt to argue against it. But at the end, even if I disagree with people who are against same-sex rights, I still recognize that they're all generally extremely good and decent people despite the political disagreement.    It's scary to think that society is heading to a place in where the requirements for professional life will be such that holding unpopular political opinions is a non-starter.  

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I disliked Sterling for lots of reasons before this and grew to dislike him even more given what I have learned about him over these past few days.  That said, place me in the camp with those who are uneasy about circumstances around Sterling's "outing" as a racist, the feedback loop and the speed of the takedown.   I think dirtynine and ZP1 are spot on in that this mob mentality rush to judgement is happening across all walks of life with increasing frequency.  The combination of social media and an insatiable thirst for instant gratification isn't conducive to a fair and thoughtful finding of the facts.  
 
From where I sit, anyone who isn't just a bit concerned about how rapidly someone can lose a job, career or even, in this case, an asset for expressing an unpopular view these days is being foolish.   

 

[dirtynine]

The last thing I want to say, I think, is something that ties it back to Sterling.  These potential conflicts aren't just new developments waiting to be pounced on by TMZ and social media. Those stories are coming, sure, but there are many, many more already embedded into a world that we either accept or choose to ignore. That's what was going on with Sterling; his known tendencies were accepted/ignored/not front-of-mind for a long time, decades, even as public attitudes shifted rapidly around him.  A new salacious story hit, the fire was lit, and there was more than enough good kindling there (past behavior, general asshole-ishness) to feed a really intense news cycle/social media firestorm that brought him down in a couple of days. 
 
Now, what about this guy Richard de Vos that owns the Magic?  He's got pretty much exactly the same background on gay rights as Mozilla's ousted CEO Brendan Eich had.  Doesn't agree with same sex marriage rights, donates to political causes that support that view on occasion (de Vos probably in much larger amounts), and doesn't talk about it unless asked, just happens to have a strong, private, personal view on that particular topic.  Why isn't he being hounded right now like Eich was?  Simple: nothing has caused a spark yet.  Somebody with a few thousand Twitter followers could start the ball rolling; it might yet happen.  What's crazy is that the Sterling situation might be the catalyst.  And then what?  The NBA has seemingly said it's ok to ban somebody harshly for holding non-progressive views.  They are proudly (and rightly, in my opinion) holding up Jason Collins as a groundbreaking athlete.  Should they "Sterling" deVos?  They won't, until a scenario exists where outrage forces them to confront the instantaneous loss of money and good will.  And now there is precedent.  
 
I don't think progress is best achieved by aggressive mob behavior.  It's a steadier, tempered, more thoughtful approach, and I'm not sure we will, as a society, have that luxury for a while. I could be way off; or maybe we'll just tire ourselves out on stories like this. I have no idea.  But along with tolerance of others' beliefs, accepting at least some base level of hypocrisy was always a part of being an adult in a functioning democracy.  I think we're losing that.  
 
Maybe Oprah will fix everything.  
 
(ed. for clarity)

 

[JohntheBaptist]

Here's what I'm quibbling with:
 

In the first tech guy example, the guys main crime was saying a joke (note: not even a hateful one) that was perceived to be in bad taste by a member of the opposite sex. A joke which was not meant in malice, and wasn't even intended for the other person to hear.
 

 
First of all, of course it was perceived to be in bad taste. The community where the joke was made/ directed sent a message that that sort of sentiment is in bad taste, is unprofessional, harms the industry and has consequences. YOU don't think it was meant in malice, but women in the tech industry have been living with that bullshit for eons. This is how you start to correct the problem. You're not giving the power of statements like that their due weight.
 
As for your trickle-down list of consequences, I have no idea where you're getting that stuff. Has nothing to do with an official punishment. If the people in this endlessly hypothetical human's life hear what he had to say and don't want to be around him anymore, how is that "unfair"? Why are so many of you acting like something like this could come tumbling out of your mouth one day when you go to take a deep breath?
 
Part of the issue here may be that you have a bad gauge on what's unacceptable. The words you're using here all downplay the impact of the joke and portray the result as a wide-reaching chain reaction Armageddon. Maybe the idea is that these things are more harmful than you're giving them credit for, people are over putting up with them, and an institutional reaction to an association with that kind of garbage is perfectly understandable.

 

[JayMags71]

I'm sorry, but at what point is enough, enough?  Punishment needs to fit the crime, and condemning what could otherwise be an honest and decent man for making an off taste joke (intended to a single friend no less)  that someone was offended by is nothing short of insanity.  You're basically advocating for the complete and utter destruction of someone's life for a moment's slip of a tongue. Progressing society and making people more tolerant/sensitive are all great ideals, but trying to enforce those values via a slash/burn mob mentality nature isn't the right way. Destroying someone's life because they said a comment that someone else found offensive at a singular point in time isn't moral nor right.

Is it really an unfair burden to ask people to think "How is this likely to be perceived? Could it be in any way interpreted as offensive? Could I be disciplined, fired, and/or shunned as a consequence of what I believe to be a harmless joke?"?

I'm interpreting your paragraph as a "yes". So we're coming at this issue from two different directions.

 

[luckiestman]

Here's what I'm quibbling with:
 
 
First of all, of course it was perceived to be in bad taste. The community where the joke was made/ directed sent a message that that sort of sentiment is in bad taste, is unprofessional, harms the industry and has consequences. YOU don't think it was meant in malice, but women in the tech industry have been living with that bullshit for eons. This is how you start to correct the problem. You're not giving the power of statements like that their due weight.
 
As for your trickle-down list of consequences, I have no idea where you're getting that stuff. Has nothing to do with an official punishment. If the people in this endlessly hypothetical human's life hear what he had to say and don't want to be around him anymore, how is that "unfair"? Why are so many of you acting like something like this could come tumbling out of your mouth one day when you go to take a deep breath?
 
Part of the issue here may be that you have a bad gauge on what's unacceptable. The words you're using here all downplay the impact of the joke and portray the result as a wide-reaching chain reaction Armageddon. Maybe the idea is that these things are more harmful than you're giving them credit for, people are over putting up with them, and an institutional reaction to an association with that kind of garbage is perfectly understandable.

Did something more happen than the dude made a "big dongle" joke? That's an offensively bad joke, but is that really offensive. That is at worst PG-13. 

 

[johnmd20]

Did something more happen than the dude made a "big dongle" joke? That's an offensively bad joke, but is that really offensive. That is at worst PG-13. 

 
Seriously. That's the issue here. The joke wasn't even that offensive, it was a dumb pun wrapped in a technology bow. And he got fired. Maybe he just wasn't that valuable of an employee and this was a way to get rid of him? Because it certainly seems like the punishment didn't fit the crime.
 
Put me in the camp that says these internet lynch mobs are not a positive to our society.

 

[moondog80]

 
Seriously. That's the issue here. The joke wasn't even that offensive, it was a dumb pun wrapped in a technology bow. And he got fired. Maybe he just wasn't that valuable of an employee and this was a way to get rid of him? Because it certainly seems like the punishment didn't fit the crime.
 
Put me in the camp that says these internet lynch mobs are not a positive to our society.

 
I agree, and would like to add:
 
-The woman who made the original tweet complaining about this also lost her job, in no small part to an internet lynch mob.  Another case of punishment > crime.
 
-During the World Series last year someone here (I forget who) was in a dither because they saw someone on a St Louis message board make a joke about bringing bombs to the parade.  He/she claimed to have tracked the person down and contacted their employer.  I didn't say anything, but this bothered me, especially given all the stuff posted here that could be deemed offensive.  Seemed like it was more about collecting scalps than truly righting a wrong.
 
Self righteous internet justice sucks.

 

[riboflav]

The last thing I want to say, I think, is something that ties it back to Sterling.  These potential conflicts aren't just new developments waiting to be pounced on by TMZ and social media. Those stories are coming, sure, but there are many, many more already embedded into a world that we either accept or choose to ignore. That's what was going on with Sterling; his known tendencies were accepted/ignored/not front-of-mind for a long time, decades, even as public attitudes shifted rapidly around him.  A new salacious story hit, the fire was lit, and there was more than enough good kindling there (past behavior, general asshole-ishness) to feed a really intense news cycle/social media firestorm that brought him down in a couple of days. 
 
Now, what about this guy Richard de Vos that owns the Magic?  He's got pretty much exactly the same background on gay rights as Mozilla's ousted CEO Brendan Eich had.  Doesn't agree with same sex marriage rights, donates to political causes that support that view on occasion (de Vos probably in much larger amounts), and doesn't talk about it unless asked, just happens to have a strong, private, personal view on that particular topic.  Why isn't he being hounded right now like Eich was?  Simple: nothing has caused a spark yet.  Somebody with a few thousand Twitter followers could start the ball rolling; it might yet happen.  What's crazy is that the Sterling situation might be the catalyst.  And then what?  The NBA has seemingly said it's ok to ban somebody harshly for holding non-progressive views.  They are proudly (and rightly, in my opinion) holding up Jason Williams as a groundbreaking athlete.  Should they "Sterling" deVos?  They won't, until a scenario exists where outrage forces them to confront the instantaneous loss of money and good will.  And now there is precedent.  
 
I don't think progress is best achieved by aggressive mob behavior.  It's a steadier, tempered, more thoughtful approach, and I'm not sure we will, as a society, have that luxury for a while. I could be way off; or maybe we'll just tire ourselves out on stories like this. I have no idea.  But along with tolerance of others' beliefs, accepting at least some base level of hypocrisy was always a part of being an adult in a functioning democracy.  I think we're losing that.  
 
Maybe Oprah will fix everything.  
 
(ed. for clarity)

 
De Vos is every bit as bad as, if not worse, than Sterling. Maybe the Internet will hang him too, yet, I highly doubt the NBA players will care nearly as much. If we're going to be consistent and inclusive at all costs though, SoSH and the Internet better get him because he doesn't just say this crap in private.
 
http://www.sportsgrid.com/nba/while-were-on-the-subject-the-orlando-magics-owner-is-vehemently-opposed-to-gay-rights/

 

[Blacken]

To use another tech example, a similar thing just happened to the guy tapped to run Mozilla.  He didn't say anything; it was simply unearthed that as a private citizen he once gave money to support Prop 8.  Obviously many did not like that; after a weeklong social media firestorm, his resignation was accepted.  I happen to oppose laws like Prop 8, and I welcome the advancement of same-sex rights.  But what happened didn't sit right with me at all.  (Read Andrew Sullivan's take for more introspection on that particular case).  

Sullivan doesn't understand Mozilla and I don't think you do either. Mozilla is not a company. It's a cultural movement and non-profit (MozCorp is for-profit but owned by the Foundation) with an ethos and it relies on the trust and goodwill of the people working for Mozilla as well as the community. Eich, being a fuck, did not have that and showed no ability to even understand why people were angry. And why I was disturbed by it is because they should have known before appointing him.

It's funny how the concern trolls literally can't come up with a case that isn't shot with context they must ignore to be so concerned.

 

[Blacken]

 
Seriously. That's the issue here. The joke wasn't even that offensive, it was a dumb pun wrapped in a technology bow. And he got fired. Maybe he just wasn't that valuable of an employee and this was a way to get rid of him? Because it certainly seems like the punishment didn't fit the crime.

They fired one and not the other. The answer should be obvious.

 

[johnmd20]

They fired one and not the other. The answer should be obvious.

 
Yeah, ok, so they just needed a reason.

 

[moondog80]

They fired one and not the other. The answer should be obvious.

 
 
I don't know if I'd make that leap.  Seems to me the most likely scenario is that they fired they guy they deemed more responsible for the situation.

 

[wibi]

 
-During the World Series last year someone here (I forget who) was in a dither because they saw someone on a St Louis message board make a joke about bringing bombs to the parade.  He/she claimed to have tracked the person down and contacted their employer.  I didn't say anything, but this bothered me, especially given all the stuff posted here that could be deemed offensive.  Seemed like it was more about collecting scalps than truly righting a wrong.

 
Posting about bringing bombs to Boston barely 6 months after the bombing of the Marathon was stupid in epic proportions.  That individual (and any other idiot) who thought it was funny to threaten violence against a group of other people that had a similar act of violence brought against them not long prior deserves every thing they get.
 
There is a huge difference in getting fired for making a bad/poor/offensive joke and getting fired to threatening to harm a large group of people

 

[loshjott]

 
I agree, and would like to add:
 
-The woman who made the original tweet complaining about this also lost her job, in no small part to an internet lynch mob.  Another case of punishment > crime.
 
-During the World Series last year someone here (I forget who) was in a dither because they saw someone on a St Louis message board make a joke about bringing bombs to the parade.  He/she claimed to have tracked the person down and contacted their employer.  I didn't say anything, but this bothered me, especially given all the stuff posted here that could be deemed offensive.  Seemed like it was more about collecting scalps than truly righting a wrong.
 
Self righteous internet justice sucks.

 
Dan Snyder approves of this analogy.

 

[moondog80]

 
Posting about bringing bombs to Boston barely 6 months after the bombing of the Marathon was stupid in epic proportions.  That individual (and any other idiot) who thought it was funny to threaten violence against a group of other people that had a similar act of violence brought against them not long prior deserves every thing they get.
 
There is a huge difference in getting fired for making a bad/poor/offensive joke and getting fired to threatening to harm a large group of people

 
 
Of course it was stupid.  But if the poster here thought it was a real threat, he would have contacted the police, not the guy's employer. 
 
And while I you don't think you mean "everything they get" in the literal sense, that's a pretty dangerous attittude.   it's very easy to think that about some faceless person and ignore how much losing ones job can suck.

 

[DJnVa]

Sooooooo, aside from this conversation, Bill Simmons is thinking the Clippers sale will fetch $1.5 billion.

 

[uncannymanny]

The issue with this "slippery slope" is not that there things were never offensive to people. I'm sure if tech guy made his joke on a conference call with a client in 1982 he'd have been fired too. The issue is living in a connected society. It's really great that I can video call a friend in China from my couch with the push of a button, but the downside to this is what you say can easily make it that far with the same minimal effort. Technology has not made words more offensive.

 

[wibi]

 
 
Of course it was stupid.  But if the poster here thought it was a real threat, he would have contacted the police, not the guy's employer. 

 
If you do epic stupid shit on the internet like that you deserve what you get.  
 
I agree that witch hunts on the internet are not a good thing but my line gets crossed when you threaten actual violence.

 

[moondog80]

 
If you do epic stupid shit on the internet like that you deserve what you get.  
 
I agree that witch hunts on the internet are not a good thing but my line gets crossed when you threaten actual violence.

 
Again, it was the guy's employer who was contacted, not the police.  So I don't buy that it was considered to be a legitimate threat of violence.

 

[johnmd20]

 
If you do epic stupid shit on the internet like that you deserve what you get.  
 
I agree that witch hunts on the internet are not a good thing but my line gets crossed when you threaten actual violence.

 
It sounded like a ridiculously bad joke made in the heat of the moment. And I think this is what we're talking about. Was it in poor taste? Yes, absolutely. Was it a real threat? Come on, man, you know it wasn't, it was an asinine comment made on a silly message board. Someone going so far as to contact the employer is ridiclous.
 
How many times have people said so and so should die in a fire? ZOMG, how can you threaten violence on a message board!!!!111!!! That person should be fired.

 

[johnmd20]

Sooooooo, aside from this conversation, Bill Simmons is thinking the Clippers sale will fetch $1.5 billion.

 
So, yeah, I will be taking the under on that.

 

[ZP1]

Here's what I'm quibbling with:
 
 
First of all, of course it was perceived to be in bad taste. The community where the joke was made/ directed sent a message that that sort of sentiment is in bad taste, is unprofessional, harms the industry and has consequences. YOU don't think it was meant in malice, but women in the tech industry have been living with that bullshit for eons. This is how you start to correct the problem. You're not giving the power of statements like that their due weight.
 

 
As other people have pointed out in response to your post, the guy made a "big dongle" pun that wouldn't even phase the censors in a PG-13 movie.  And your entire post is defending how the guys life should be completely ruined in order to make an example of him.  So let me state this clearly so we can just agree to disagree:
 
Your stance is that the tech guy who made the "big dongle" pun deserved to be fired from his job, and deserved to have his work prospects permanently damaged because of that one off comment?  
 
 

The issue with this "slippery slope" is not that there things were never offensive to people. I'm sure if tech guy made his joke on a conference call with a client in 1982 he'd have been fired too. The issue is living in a connected society. It's really great that I can video call a friend in China from my couch with the push of a button, but the downside to this is what you say can easily make it that far with the same minimal effort. Technology has not made words more offensive.

 
The difference is that in 1982, your problems would begin and end with the company that let you go. Your statement would also have to be bad enough that the company itself felt reason to let you go as opposed to being forced into it by extreme outside pressures.  When you end up falling to a publicized internet mob, the collateral damage is left for everyone in the world to see.  Meaning that even if you were to move to the other side of the country,  you'd still have significant troubles finding a new job afterwards.  That's a huge problem. 

 

[soxfan121]

Put me in the camp that says these internet lynch mobs are not a positive to our society.

 
So punny, because of course putting people in camps (reservations, internment) and lynch mobs are two of the most shameful acts in American history.
 
However, on the off chance you were serious, the use of "internet lynch mob" really is a fucking shameful co-opting of the term. People used to write angry letters to the editor or speak ill of someone in public squares. Acting like vocal outrage, even amplified by technology, is somehow new or original or even in the same zip code as a "lynch mob" suggest you slept through too many history classes.
 
EDIT: Words have meanings. Misuse of them has always been grounds for objection. 

 

[Infield Infidel]

The last thing I want to say, I think, is something that ties it back to Sterling.  These potential conflicts aren't just new developments waiting to be pounced on by TMZ and social media. Those stories are coming, sure, but there are many, many more already embedded into a world that we either accept or choose to ignore. That's what was going on with Sterling; his known tendencies were accepted/ignored/not front-of-mind for a long time, decades, even as public attitudes shifted rapidly around him.  A new salacious story hit, the fire was lit, and there was more than enough good kindling there (past behavior, general asshole-ishness) to feed a really intense news cycle/social media firestorm that brought him down in a couple of days. 
 
Now, what about this guy Richard de Vos that owns the Magic?  He's got pretty much exactly the same background on gay rights as Mozilla's ousted CEO Brendan Eich had.  Doesn't agree with same sex marriage rights, donates to political causes that support that view on occasion (de Vos probably in much larger amounts), and doesn't talk about it unless asked, just happens to have a strong, private, personal view on that particular topic.  Why isn't he being hounded right now like Eich was?  Simple: nothing has caused a spark yet.  Somebody with a few thousand Twitter followers could start the ball rolling; it might yet happen.  What's crazy is that the Sterling situation might be the catalyst.  And then what?  The NBA has seemingly said it's ok to ban somebody harshly for holding non-progressive views.  They are proudly (and rightly, in my opinion) holding up Jason Williams as a groundbreaking athlete.  Should they "Sterling" deVos?  They won't, until a scenario exists where outrage forces them to confront the instantaneous loss of money and good will.  And now there is precedent.  
 
I don't think progress is best achieved by aggressive mob behavior.  It's a steadier, tempered, more thoughtful approach, and I'm not sure we will, as a society, have that luxury for a while. I could be way off; or maybe we'll just tire ourselves out on stories like this. I have no idea.  But along with tolerance of others' beliefs, accepting at least some base level of hypocrisy was always a part of being an adult in a functioning democracy.  I think we're losing that.  
 
Maybe Oprah will fix everything.  
 
(ed. for clarity)

 
I think this is a good, thoughtful post. But I'd say Sterling's views go well passed "non-progressive." I think America has gotten to the point where  many (most?) conservatives not only don't share the views Sterling has spouted, but find them anathema to American society. Whereas with de Vos, there's still a solid chunk of people in America who agree with him (for good or bad). Eventually, a critical amount of public opinion on the issue will be against what de Vos believes, but I think we are years off from that. 
 
Also, IMHO, I would say that a tech non-profit is likely to be more progressive than basically anything in sports. 

 

[ZP1]

 
So punny, because of course putting people in camps (reservations, internment) 

 
"Put me in the camp" as a conversational phrase doesn't relate to what you're trying to say it does here.  It's not where the phrase originated from, and it's not what people actually think of when people use the phrase. It's just used to note that you agree with a certain viewpoint that other people have.   

 

[JimBoSox9]

 
So, yeah, I will be taking the under on that.

 
I honestly don't think he's that far off.  Closer than the options in the SoSH poll.  1b is right about where the median expectation should be.  Unless there is serious buyer attrition it'll end up in the 1-1.3 range with the potential to go higher.  Anything less than 900m is a funny joke.

 

[JimBoSox9]

 
"Put me in the camp" as a conversational phrase doesn't relate to what you're trying to say it does here.  It's not where the phrase originated from, and it's not what people actually think of when people use the phrase. It's just used to note that you agree with a certain viewpoint that other people have.   

 
"so punny"

 

[johnmd20]

 
So punny, because of course putting people in camps (reservations, internment) and lynch mobs are two of the most shameful acts in American history.
 
However, on the off chance you were serious, the use of "internet lynch mob" really is a fucking shameful co-opting of the term. People used to write angry letters to the editor or speak ill of someone in public squares. Acting like vocal outrage, even amplified by technology, is somehow new or original or even in the same zip code as a "lynch mob" suggest you slept through too many history classes.
 
EDIT: Words have meanings. Misuse of them has always been grounds for objection. 

 
You're going to compare a regional letter to the editor in a newspaper in 1982 or a crier in a public square in versus the global reach of Twitter, TMZ, and the internet in general? The concept is the same, the platform and number of eyeballs has changed significantly. As have the ramifications. To say it's the same is kind of insane. And you are not insane. So take a breath.

 

[johnmd20]

 
I honestly don't think he's that far off.  Closer than the options in the SoSH poll.  1b is right about where the median expectation should be.  Unless there is serious buyer attrition it'll end up in the 1-1.3 range with the potential to go higher.  Anything less than 900m is a funny joke.

 
I'm taking the under, that's all. There is no way this basketball team is going for one and a half a billion.
 
edit - 1.5 billion does not equal 500 million

 

[JimBoSox9]

wait, what?  You think the LA Clippers are going to bring less than the Milwaukee Bucks?

 

[johnmd20]

wait, what?  You think the LA Clippers are going to bring less than the Milwaukee Bucks?

 
Sorry, sorry, sorry, one and a HALF billion. Not a half.

 

[uncannymanny]

 
As other people have pointed out in response to your post, the guy made a "big dongle" pun that wouldn't even phase the censors in a PG-13 movie.  And your entire post is defending how the guys life should be completely ruined in order to make an example of him.  So let me state this clearly so we can just agree to disagree:
 
Your stance is that the tech guy who made the "big dongle" pun deserved to be fired from his job, and deserved to have his work prospects permanently damaged because of that one off comment?  
 
 
 
The difference is that in 1982, your problems would begin and end with the company that let you go. Your statement would also have to be bad enough that the company itself felt reason to let you go as opposed to being forced into it by extreme outside pressures.  When you end up falling to a publicized internet mob, the collateral damage is left for everyone in the world to see.  Meaning that even if you were to move to the other side of the country,  you'd still have significant troubles finding a new job afterwards.  That's a huge problem. 

Well we don't live in 1982. While Twitter and the like offer us the ability to reach exponentially more people than we could then, it also means your transgressions can reach an audience with that same exponential modifier.

I don't disagree with some of your issues in this thread, but as Blacken said, I've yet to see a case made for someone that didn't do something stupid they should have known better not to in a context that is charged for their comments to ignite outrage.

A colleague of mine wrote this piece last year and hopefully it will give you some context of why this was unacceptable and why any wise employer would have thrown this guy out on his ass:

http://futurewomanintech.com

Your analogy of a PG-13 movie just doesn't make sense. This is a professional event for an industry in which women have been fighting very real discrimination for decades, not a room full of people watching Shia Labeouf high five Bumblebee after he says it. Arguing that what is acceptable in a movie should be acceptable in professional environments strikes me as a bit ridiculous.

Mods, I think this is a very interesting discussion and perhaps might be suited to break out into V&N so as not to derail the Sterling pile-on.

 

[Blacken]

I dunno if breaking it out and taking it private is a great idea. personally enjoy people defending-but-I-promise-I'm-not-defending reprehensible fucks in public. It does a lot to show how bent the whole thing is.

 

[uncannymanny]

Words have meanings. Misuse of them has always been grounds for objection. 

Thank you for more succinctly stating what I was getting at.

 

[luckiestman]

I'd separate Mozilla guy, Sterling, and deVos from the fan on message board posting tasteless comments and the big dongle guy

 

[johnmd20]

I dunno if breaking it out and taking it private is a great idea. personally enjoy people defending-but-I-promise-I'm-not-defending reprehensible fucks in public. It does a lot to show how bent the whole thing is.

 
A guy makes a big dongle joke and he's a reprehensible fuck? Come on. This outrage is ridiculous. Furthermore, I hate Sterling and I'm glad he's gone and he is, in fact, a reprehensible fuck, but what he said wasn't even public. In fact, the crap he officially did in public that was known and spoken about was ignored by the NBA for years.

 

[Blacken]

Yes, a guy who consciously chooses to make the tech industry more difficult for women is a reprehensible fuck. Perpetuating shitty culture is on everyone who chooses to be complicit. Ignorance isn't an excuse, because it's 2014 and you should know by now. If you're a functioning adult, you self-reflect.

And the same people are defending Eich.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
A guy makes a big dongle joke and he's a reprehensible fuck? Come on. This outrage is ridiculous. Furthermore, I hate Sterling and I'm glad he's gone and he is, in fact, a reprehensible fuck, but what he said wasn't even public. In fact, the crap he officially did in public that was known and spoken about was ignored by the NBA for years.

 
If you think that the NBA didn't have a team of attorneys working behind the scenes to try and come up with a case to oust Donald Sterling during any of those instances, you're crazy. This was the smoking gun the league needed, and they didn't feel they had the evidence prior to this.

 

[soxfan121]

 
You're going to compare a regional letter to the editor in a newspaper in 1982 or a crier in a public square in versus the global reach of Twitter, TMZ, and the internet in general? The concept is the same, the platform and number of eyeballs has changed significantly. As have the ramifications. To say it's the same is kind of insane. And you are not insane. So take a breath.

 
In 1982, I lived in a town of about 5000 people, all of whom knew each other and each other's families by sight, if not proper name. They shopped at the same stores, went to the same church and read the same newspaper.
 
Since the days of town criers, most people have known their neighbors. Those with riches and power were more "known of" than "known personally", but people damn sure knew who the owner of the local factory was because it was the only job in town.
 
The raw number of eyeballs has certainly skyrocketed. But I think you are misjudging the rate and scale of those numbers when compared to (your choice) 1982 or when town criers worked, etc. People have gossiped FOREVER. There has literally always been A.) a societal "norm" and B.) talk about those who do not conform to A. And especially when the subject was rich and/or powerful and in a position to affect the housing, health, employment or general welfare of the populace.  
 
That the ramifications have changed is certainly true. In the past (as recently as 2009, in fact) a rich, powerful guy like Donald Sterling could tacitly admit (by monetary settlement) that he discriminated against minorities as part of building a billion dollar fortune. Now, when an obviously bad person like Donald Sterling with a lifetime of transgressions says something that does not fit the societal norm, he is subject to ramifications. Frankly, I'm astonished. Billionaires and millionaires have, in the past decade (just a few examples, as we don't have the bandwidth to list all of them): gotten away with beating their girlfriends on tape, practicing segregation and housing discrimination, and stealing several billion dollars from taxpayers. Rarely if ever has a truly rich and powerful person faced personal consequences. That Sterling was ostracized - even if it probably won't hold up - is proof that society has chosen to at least address THIS instance. And that's all - he's been ostracized. He wasn't hung, he wasn't burned, he wasn't crucified - he was ostracized, told he could no longer be part of a private club. We here have a saying about that - LOLBOOHOO.
 
For every example of someone being "internet mobbed", I can give you a thousand or a million of people being abused, humiliated or otherwise "destroyed" by people like Donald Sterling - people with money and power. Of actual lynchings for people who dared to speak against the Sterling types of the past. Of people forced to figuratively lick the boots of a Sterling type. 
 
Using terms like "lynch mob" in this context is, at best, tone deaf and at worst, deliberately provocative. The term has a specific, historical meaning and invoking in this context, to describe what happened to Donald Sterling, is wrong IMO. 

 

[SumnerH]

Is it really an unfair burden to ask people to think "How is this likely to be perceived? Could it be in any way interpreted as offensive? Could I be disciplined, fired, and/or shunned as a consequence of what I believe to be a harmless joke?"?
 

 
I'd argue that refraining from behavior because it could in any way be interpreted as offensive is not only an undue burden (Plenty of ignorant people have interpreted the word niggardly as offensive) but can be actively evil (Sterling interpreted bringing black people to the game as offensive).  Letting the victim solely determine what constitutes offensive is as ludicrous as not considering them at all.