Why LinkedIn Wasn't Scammed | Hacker News Reader

Why LinkedIn Wasn't Scammed

epicureandealmaker.blogspot.com

8 pointsschmittz10 comments

Is it me or does the kitchen remodel analogy doesn't make his point at all... I mean if you sell 5% for 50k through your broker and it's trading at 100k the next day and you find out that the broker made it available to his best clients first... How would that not be a scam?

The point he is making is that the broker could not predict the (inflated) marked valuation of the slice once it reached the market because of the nature of the process. It does not matter who profits from it, their privileged clients or some other speculator.

How is this dead at 7 points? I agree he is too personal but his points are spot-on and he does a great job of correcting the overly-simplistic metaphors that were dominating the media coverage.

Seems a bit much to call someone a slut.

http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/

I've found, when presented with an odd but well-crafted turn of phrase, that it's often most productive to assume that it is an SNL reference of which I was unaware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane,_you_ignorant_slut#Jane_Cu...

Its something Dan Akroyd famously said the Jane Curtain during their "balanced debates" on Saturday Night Live back in the 70s.

Yeah, the 70s was full of misogynism.

I really don't see that a comedian using a phrase satirically in the 70s makes it appropriate to use in 2011.

I think you missed the point, or did not see the footage of the scene. It was supposed to be misogynic. It was making him out to be a fool whilst also being comedically overly harsh on something that was almost always not called for.

It is a common phrase (at least in my life) for debates in which a person is completely wrong. It was regularly used in my Policy Debates in high school. but there is no accounting for taste.

Yes, I didn't see footage of the scene because I've never lived in the US, certainly not in the 70s.

And you miss my point. A character being made fun of for being misogynist it not itself misogynist. But taking that misogynist phrase, using it in a different context --- now it depends on your readers. Will they all get the reference?

Maybe that blog's regular readers all get the reference. But then someone posted it to HN and kept the same title. HN's readership has a substantial (perhaps majority) share of its readers based outside the US, and I expect the majority of its readers weren't capable of watching SNL in the 70s. I'd guess that a majority of HN's readers wouldn't get the reference, so posting it here crosses the line into casual misogynism.

I completely understand that it is a highly cultural reference, and I do (atleast think) I grasp your point, but I do not agree that something that is said in jest is (especially when so wildly out of context such as this) is any more offensive on its own because the reader is not a part of the original intended audience. Nothing against either party, and I don't really want ot hijack this thread any further so I will leave my comments at that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7S_XWuKpHc

Reply on news.ycombinator.com