Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kenji | Hacker News Reader

How about Hillary Clinton literally saying "Can't we just drone this guy?" [1]

[1] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562

Respectable organizations don't copy text from unsourced articles, change the font to Courier to make it look like a cable, and then screenshot the result.

Why did Wikileaks feel the need to do this? Is it because they felt silly just linked to a completely unsourced story on a partisan rag?

Simple: character limit on Twitter, want to provide context to the statement, and want more exposure to the quote than a link would provide.

True Pundit is not in any way shape or form a reliable source and this quote is completely unsourced.

Hillary said[0] that she didn't recall joking about it, but that if she did say it, it would have been a joke.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSTht4G4yJs

To be clear, this is coming from a woman who has repeatedly told bald-faced lies; anything short of a complete denial is a confirmation.

And complete denial is even more confirmation, given her track record with lies. Remember when she told about how she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia and the entire thing was pure confabulation and she shook hands with a little girl on arrival?

I thought I was being a slightly cynical, but I had completely forgotten the story you mention. I am now approaching despondency; why would I bother watching a HRC State of the Union speech or press conference, when I don't believe anything she says?

Good question. Well, you can still watch her to draw general conclusions from her behaviour. That's why I watch Clinton, Trump, Putin, etc. It's very interesting how they behave, even if I trust none of them. Sometimes, there are even clear microexpressions and movements that reveal underlying mindsets.

Yes, a drone strike in the middle of the capital city of our closest ally, obviously that was a serious suggestion....

Because joking about droning people is a thing we want our leaders to do. /s

Yes, humor is forbidden in the halls of power. Joking about terrible things is something only commoners are allowed to do.

>humor is forbidden in the halls of power

By and large this is the professional standard people are held to in positions of power. So yes, dark humor is "forbidden".

Imagine a CEO "joking" about laying off 20% of the company work force in a downsizing. How would that go for employee moral? "I was obviously joking guys! You're all keeping your jobs!"

A good portion of the employees would be looking for work elsewhere. Because there is no way to be certain the CEO was "actually joking" about possibly laying them off.

It's the professional standard while in public. Behind closed doors, it's not.

I would fully expect a CEO to joke about layoffs and whatever else during meetings with top executives. Doing it in front of the whole company would be horrible.

>It's the professional standard while in public. Behind closed doors, it's not.

If an email leaked from my CEO with such a joke in a "private email" - I'd be looking for another job. Even if it was "obviously a joke". Just because it was said in private doesn't make it any less bad if the public hears it or change the standard people will judge it upon.

Nothing was ever written in an email. It was the usual, "sources said"...

I agree but also disagree.

Plenty of people joke about off color things. But, from my experience, even in private, they generally don't joke about things they could do. So I might joke about drone striking or nuking someone. But who cares, I have no power to do either of those things.

However I don't joke, even in private, about introducing backdoors into my code. The reason why is because it is something I actually can do.

So yes, people take part in dark humor all the time in private. However it's usually about unrealistic things. I don't know exactly how to resolve this with particularly powerful people though, so I would err on the side of giving them a pass.

Seems to me that this joke is on the "unrealistic things" side.

First, the Secretary of State doesn't control the drones. It's not her call to make.

Second, a drone strike in London is not realistic. It may be technically feasible, but it's not politically feasible. It would wreck diplomatic relations with basically the entire world.

I work as a paramedic when I'm not being a geek.

We make at times horrible jokes about anything and anyone, including patients. It's often described as a coping mechanism. Black or gallows humor.

But to your logic, there's no way to be certain we don't actually mean malice, ill will or misfortune to our patients...

"We're sending a message [to Assange]. We have the capacity to do it He'll know it. It will be at a time of our choosing—under circumstances that have the greatest impact."

^^^ Does Joe Biden saying that make you think the state department are big fans?

Hillary would probably kill him in a heartbeat if she had the means to do it quietly.

Your [to Assange] is completely off base. Watching the interview excerpt (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/vp-biden-on-russ...) he is clearly talking about Russia there. And he further says that he hopes the public won't know it when it happens, so it clearly wouldn't be referring to assassinating a public figure.

Tongue-in-cheek: President Bill Clinton later apologized for the bombing, stating it was accidental. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_C...

Note that we were actively bombing Serbia at the time. The only error there was bombing the Chinese embassy instead of the Serbian government building that was supposed to be the target. Bombing an embassy in London would be a bit different....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com