Hacker News Reader

Comment by hk | Hacker News Reader

Spitting in his face is going a bit far, but it's pretty difficult for me to feel sympathy for the guy. I struggle to think of a more dislikable, arrogant jerk. This belated plea for human-to-human sympathy falls on deaf ears, for me at least.

In my group, Arrington symbolises everything we hate about the "Web 2.0" greed culture. He's relentlessly promoted himself as the gatekeeper to this bullshit world of easy VC money, now crashing down around him. Good riddance.

If it hadn't been something as revolting as spitting, and instead say a nice cream pie to the face, I'd be delighted.

View on HN

Why do you have so much animosity toward him? You say he represents everything you hate about Web 2.0 greed culture, but is that a valid reason to delight in someone receiving a nice cream pie in the face?

I think you need to stop and reconsider whether this is the appropriate attitude to take toward someone who really does nothing more than write articles and speak at conferences.

I'd also argue that a culture of tolerance, civility and diversity of views does far more to foster the open exchange of ideas than the silencing of those with whom we disagree.

I do agree somewhat with some of the criticisms that you and others have put forth about Techcrunch as a publication, in particular that it was prone to hype. But otherwise I think he performed a valuable service to our industry, and I think his willingness to speak his mind is both rare and laudable.

It saddens me that the animosity and intolerance that have shadowed Techcrunch have boiled over to something as despicable as this.

I'm worried about exactly how that person received so many upvotes. This person does not seem to have much basis to his/her hate other than some blog posts. More importantly, there seems to be a sizeable number of people who agree with the idea of "I disagree with you and don't like what you write about, so you must be an asshole."

I had the same reaction as you. And to add to what you wrote, I interpreted it as, "I disagree with you and don't like what you write about, so you must be an asshole, and my only problem with what happened is that it was a bit over the top."

I might be in the minority on this, but I was unhappy with the whole discussion from the past about banning/censoring Valleywag and Techcrunch. Though the arguments against Valleywag had slightly more merit, the whole thing smacked of intolerance toward people and ideas we disagree with, which see its logical culmination in acts like this spitting incident.

Makes me think John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" should be required reading here.

"More importantly, there seems to be a sizeable number of people who agree with the idea of "I disagree with you and don't like what you write about, so you must be an asshole."

Because of course it couldn't possibly be that people object to the way in which he spouts those disagreeable opinions. Or the ex-cathedra pontificating on technical matters he has no understanding of whatsoever. Or the use of his extremely loud megaphone to bully individuals.

The bulk of the antipathy towards Arrington, I believe, has very little to do with what he says and almost everything to do with how he says it. When TC was new, none of the most obnoxious behaviour was yet apparent. As time's gone on it's been on a continual slide into egomania and vindictiveness.

[And, fwiw, no: I have never been covered, or asked to be covered, or had a project which was relevant to be covered, by Techcrunch.]

[edit: In case anybody's unclear, nothing here should be misinterpreted as support or defence of gobbing in his face.]

At least in the french-speaking world, celebrities have gotten used to this.

Pieing is the act of throwing a pie at an authority figure, as a means of protesting against a perceived flaw (arrogance, hubris) in the target's character.

and also:

Godard was very pleased at being pied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieing

Ok, that's definitely something we need to inherit from the French. How awesome would it be to regularly see a pie fight break out during a movie opening? That would be totally sweet!

It's a knee-jerk comparison, and certainly not one that I believe, but when you said "I think you need to stop and reconsider whether this is the appropriate attitude to take toward someone who really does nothing more than write articles and speak at conferences," the retort that came to my mind was "All Hitler did was sign papers and speak at a podium."

The point is that despite just writing articles and speaking at conferences, the content of his messages have far more meat than his enactment of them.

Presidents do nothing more than say and write things. Why are they so hated?

That's not true, except in a reductio ad adsurdum sense. Presidents administer laws, hire and fire staff, spend money, withhold money, declare wars, veto laws, etc. In the absurdly literal sense they do execute these actions by exercising their vocal chords to speak and triggering their fingers to write, but this is totally different from being a journalist writer and speaker.

It is also true that not all speech is equally tolerable, in both the moral and legal sense. The Supreme Court ruled long ago, for example, that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not an instance of protected speech.

So how is that different from saying "Arrington just speaks at conferences and writes blog posts. Why do people hate him?"

Speaking and writing as a journalist is what Michael Arrington does. That's a very specific type of speech -- so specific in fact that it's actually explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution. There is simply no relationship whatsoever between an article Michael writes and, for example, a President's order to bomb another country, except that the two are in some way shape or form molded out of words.

I know Arrington, and he's much nicer than you sound. Can you give an example where he's said anything even half as nasty about anyone as you've just said about him?

From the way you describe your beef with him, it sounds as if you're making up a personality for him-- that you're projecting onto him your bitterness about "Web 2.0 greed culture." You're wrong about that too, incidentally.

Having had one personal interaction with him, I'd have to agree - he's a nice enough guy. It seems some people prefer the unthinking cheerleaders that are as thick as flies in Norcal. Techcrunch's articles might be uninformed sometimes, but they are generally fair.

holy crap well said

Also, "Web 2.0 Greed Culture"...really?

There are a lot of faster, easier ways to make money if you're greedy. Before the crash, I'd say go into finance and become an i-banker.

Web 2.0 start ups -- especially one seeking seed money and boot strapping -- are seeking more responsibility than they are wealth. It still has that "selling t-shirts on the internet" feeling: a) Everyone is doing it. b)It feels like a good idea. c) Its not really known if people can make money from doing it.

Because you seem to be new here, I will resist the urge to down-mod you without explanation. I don't think the down-mods are for the logic of your arguments. They're for the attitude reflected in your comments (except the top level comment, which seemed to be in good spirit, but 'good-riddance' is a bit negative to me personally). Unlike most other web communities, 'fuck you'-flavored comments are not well tolerated at HN. That, I think, is the most appealing part of this community. If you do intend to stay here and prosper, it would be a good idea to disagree in a more civil fashion. No personal attacks, no arrogance, no being a jerk. Maybe a little sarcasm, but sprinkled with humor. Also, most HN readers can identify disguised attacks fairly well. So, lighten up my friend!

In the interest of full-disclosure, I did down-mod the comment that you just deleted.

I dislike techcrunch and I dislike his writing, but I'm full of sympathy for the man. He should take the matter to the police and with any luck the contemptible coward who spat in his face will get a criminal record for their trouble.

Huh? You think that spitting on someone should be illegal!?

I don't understand what you mean, anyway. You don't like his business, you don't like his writing, but you have all sorts of cares for him? Er .. why? What would he have to do to make you finally relinquish your sympathy?

In my book, a man is but the sum of his actions. I can't stand Arrington's actions, therefore I can't stand him, ergo I have no sympathy for the hatred his actions have engendered amongst sum.

And one more thing - the man who spat in his face may be contemptible, but it doesn't doesn't fit my model of how "cowards" behave either. The coward would be writing spiteful comments anonymously on blogs. Walking up to someone and spitting in their face takes balls, IMO. Not exactly my preferred means of communication but it certainly got the point across.

I think technically that spitting in someone's face would be considered assault. Not 100% sure on that, though.

Nah, not assault. At least, in my country neighbouring Germany (Belgium) spitting in someone's face is considered a 'verbal insult' for legal reasons.

In the U.S. it is assault.

Yeah, as jraines said, I only know about here in the US. Have no knowledge of other countries.

You think that spitting on someone should be illegal!?

Yes, spitting on someone is illegal.

Fun game: stand on a busy street corner and spit on everyone who walks by. If you're arrested before you're crippled, you win.

How about that, it is illegal, at least in the US and some other places. I had no idea. I disagree, too; it's highly distasteful but shouldn't actually be criminal - but that's getting off topic.

Anyway I stand corrected.

It's assault, plain and simple. --How can you justify doing that to someone?

Assault is punished by law according to physical consequence. If you break someone's jaw, you go to jail. If you break their heart by verbal assault, you don't.

There are no physical consequences to being spat on by a healthy person (if they are sick and do so knowingly to infect you, that is completely different). It is an insult, a grotesque one, but an insult none the less, and should be treated as such by law.

If you break someone's jaw, you go to jail. If you break their heart by verbal assault, you don't.

That is not necessarily true. Commission of verbal assault can land a person in jail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words_doctrine#United_...

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

I am not a lawyer, but I believe this doctrine has essentially not been enforced in recent memory. The subsequent paragraph to the one you quoted steadily showed it being rejected by those who attempted to bring it before the court in the US.

There are fresh fighting-words arrest-reports, here: http://news.google.com/news?q=%22fighting+words%22+arrested

the test for assault is that a reasonable person would fear for their safety or life

the test for battery is that you harmfully or offensively touched someone or something on them

i think spitting would fall under both for most juries..

And if the spitter has, say, hepatitis?

If someone with an infectious disease knowingly infects another, whether it be by unprotected sex without disclosure or by spitting, then that is malicious intent to harm and is already well covered by law.

And what if they didn't know they had a disease? It doesn't matter - forcing someone to share your bodily fluids in such an aggressive manner should be a crime. And of course the punishment should fit the crime, but at a minimum, spitting is equal to minor physical assault.

I've started some dumb comment threads here, but I'm humbled by this one.

Violence is not a matter of sympathy.

"You think that spitting on someone should be illegal!?"

As noted it is illegal in most countries.

"I don't understand what you mean, anyway. [...] What would he have to do to make you finally relinquish your sympathy?"

Something a great deal worse than writing articles that do not much interest me. I find it incomprehensible that someone could find a matter of mere taste to be sufficient justification for a crime.

"And one more thing - the man who spat in his face may be contemptible, but it doesn't doesn't fit my model of how "cowards" behave either."

Your definition of bravery is not one I have any respect for then.

Not "most" countries. I am not sure it is even "many" countries. And whether something is illegal is not an argument for whether it should be illegal - see Saudi Arabia.

I don't remember defining bravery anywhere? I simply said that in my opinion, most "cowards" don't consummate their cowardice by walking up to big guys (Arrington is a big guy) and spitting on them.

I don't think that's necessarily right.

Anyone motivated enough to take an "extreme" action against someone else (eg spitting on them) could be argued that they are not necessarily in a right frame of mind and more or less going to do it regardless of circumstances.

Exhibit A - the guy who threw shoes at then President Bush.. there were secret service all over that place.

Without knowing who did it, or for what reason, I'd be fairly confident in betting that at no point did Michael's size come into the equation.

Spitting in someone's face and then standing your ground to accept the consequences takes balls. Running away is, almost by definition, cowardice.

I think spitting in someone's face is by definition cowardice.

I'm inclined to disagree. If you view cowardice as avoiding confrontation, I fail to see how blatantly spitting in someone's face meets the criteria.

Attacking someone because you don't like what they say is wrong. If you disagree with what they say then you should try to convince them logically, not through intimidation/harrasment. If you pie someone that is your friend in a jovial way then of course that is different, but attacking someone because you disagree with them any in sort of physical way is wrong and should not be encouraged.

Yuck! No matter how much you abhor a person, you don’t have a right to harm or intimidate the person. Intolerance seemingly is at it’s peak. I just hope the frustrated, overworked yet underperforming, and morally debauched ‘European entrepreneur’ doesn’t typifies our usual web entrepreneur. To me he seems like just another desperate chap who was hoping to be another run-away hit in the web without a lot of hard work. The declining economy, tighter markets, fierce competition, and resulting desperation could be blamed for the depravity.

easy VC money

i expect you've never tried to raise vc?

"He's relentlessly promoted himself..."

How is that?

I don't really know how to respond to that in less than a thousand words, so let's just say:

1. because he obviously has 2. I consider this to be generally accepted as truthful 3. if you don't agree then we are probably not going to agree on anything, ever

and leave it at that. This is probably breaching some law of argument ("Fallacy of Call to Common Sense" or something?) but hey, who has the time.

Okay

There really isn't a response to what you wrote other than to concede that I believe that I can't provide a reasonable response to what you wrote.

Surely that's not a bad thing. Humility isn't a bad thing in a person but in business it's not a helpful attribute. At least when TC started he was the business, so self-promotion was a must.

He is a blogger who obsessively writes about startups. He never promoted himself for anything else. People (used to) break into his home to pitch their startups and he actually listens to them. How is this arrogance? Would you listen to someone breaking into your home?

I don't know Arrington, but to me he always sounded like a humble, down-to-earth guy, very passionate about his job.

He's just a journalist, dude, doing what journalists do.

Would you still be delighted if the person had spit into the cream pie before throwing it?

I remember a thread on HN where PG asked us whether articles from TC should be banned.

Maybe we should re-evaluate that.

Many, if not most of the TC articles posted here do seem to be sensationalist in nature, so it's easy to believe Arrington's just after ad-money (as some people say).

pg asked about valleywag.com. Some other user asked about banning techcrunch.

From a business standpoint, it would be silly for pg to ban a site that helps promote YC startups, not to mention TC is nowhere near as wonky/gossipy as valleywag.

> it would be silly for pg to ban a site that helps promote YC startups, not to mention TC is nowhere near as wonky/gossipy as valleywag.

Right. PG banning it would be different from people just not posting any TC stories though. No need for PG to incur Arrington's wrath.

From what I've seen, TC contains so much gossip and mildly nauseating posts that we'd be better off without it.

It's funny, I think Arrington totally deserves to get punched in the face. But reading about him being spit on had me disgusted on his behalf.

Being punched in the face is a more honest action than spitting. Remember the kids at school that used to bite people - little weasels then, little assholes now.

I think the commentator is making a point about the difference in thinking he deserves a punch and actually punching (well spitting on) him.

A lot of people dislike the guy (I dont care for his attitude myslef but I respect his influence) and probably waould say "he deserves a punch" without meaning it literally :)

I'm not disagreeing with the commentator, just taking his point as a cue for a statement about how cowardly and nasty I think spitting is.