Kyle: "given Rap Genius's somewhat questionable history"
Tom: " ... if you think we've said stupid things and have been obnoxious / wack ..."
Kyle: "... I've no patience for rape jokes or your problems with queues."
Tom's reply reflects a lack of appreciation for the inappropriateness of a rape joke. AFAICT most decent human beings frown upon jokes about rape. And while you may find rape jokes entertaining, I definitely wouldn't want to associate myself with the behavior.
More generally, we (the technology community) shouldn't be condoning these remarks. Sadly, this even shows up in politics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_and_pregnancy_controversi...
A year old, but relevant: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-16-2012/louis-c-k...
If you think you have a better grip on funny and appropriateness, then you're welcome to your opinion. But is anyone welcome to try to ruin someone's reputation just because you happen to disagree on something as ephemeral as a one-off joke? Do we really want to be THAT sensitive that even kidding about something is entirely verboten or you'll ruin your reputation forever?
You've seriously never said something in the moment that you thought was funny at the time that you wish you could have a take back on?
> if you think you have a better grip on funny and appropriateness
If you find rape jokes funny, then yes: I and most people would believe that I have a better grip on appropriateness than you.
> But is anyone welcome to try to ruin someone's reputation just because you happen to disagree on something as ephemeral as a one-off joke?
It was a tweet. Tweets are public and the internet won't magically forget, especially when others have discussed the matter. First google search result for "rap genius rape joke" is http://valleywag.gawker.com/rap-genius-imma-rape-you-in-your... with a screenshot http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18xpcvut8ka32png/ku-xlarge.p...
And if truly believe that a tweet is ephemeral, then I've got a bridge to sell you :)
And to be clear, RG brought it upon themselves. RG ruined their own reputations by making the tweet. This email reminded us of a previous event, but Kyle was not at all responsible for original tweet.
> Do we really want to be THAT sensitive that even kidding about something is entirely verboten or you'll ruin your reputation forever?
That thought process is what gives the tech community a bad name. There are certain things that a decent human being does not think to joke about, and rape is one of those things. I recommend you look into Todd Akin, who made some comments about "legitimate rape". Or Richard Mourdock, who claimed that a rape victim's pregnance is something "God intended". Guess what? Those guys probably thought the comments weren't offensive either.
> You've seriously never said something in the moment that you thought was funny at the time that you wish you could have a take back on?
I'm not stupid enough to joke about rape. And I'm certainly not stupid enough to make any off-color joke in a public tweet
RG said something publicly that's probably been uttered a million times between friends bantering. I've heard things that are a thousand times worse. It's unfortunate that they chose the wrong channel for that sort of utterance, but frankly the only people "hurt" by what they said were the people that chose to be "hurt" by it. Let's be clear, being "offended" is always a choice. There's 7 billion people on the planet, you'll never be able to avoid things you dislike, but you have a choice in how you deal with it. I choose to respect other people's freedom of expression, and interact with people I think add value. I don't have to throw a public temper tantrum if someone has wildly different values. (I view posting private correspondence publicly to try to shame someone as being equivalent to a temper tantrum)
I hear people say a lot of things I think are /stupid/, but I never feel a need to tell them that they're "offensive", I just don't deal with those people when I realize our values don't align. So I find the idea that RG broke some obvious "code" that "everyone" agrees to is laughable. Clearly, not "everyone" agrees with your very sensitive sense of humor.
The way I see it: they pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off. My level of caring about that is pretty much zero.
1) "they [only] pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off" including this fellow who posted the email. If you truly believe that they only pissed off people actively looking to be pissed off, then only those people will be pissed off now. No one else. There would be no real change in RG's reputation, and all this post does is take up a spot on the front page.
2) they pissed off a lot of people, including those that aren't "actively looking to be pissed off". In that case, dredging up the past actually does affect them even more.
You can't have it both ways. You want to believe that only people actively looking to be offended would be bothered by the remark and that somehow discussing the past is actually hurting them more, but they are inconsistent beliefs.
> I choose to respect other people's freedom of expression
Right, which is why you should respect other people's rights to discuss the matter at hand. You shouldn't get upset because this conversation is happening.
> I don't have to throw a public temper tantrum if someone has wildly different values. (I view posting private correspondence publicly to try to shame someone as being equivalent to a temper tantrum)
RG's tweet was public and so is this discussion. The email reminded us of the original tweet. There was no rape joke in the email. I think you are missing that part -- the actual offense that we are talking about happened long before this email in a public forum (twitter).
RG apologized, true. But that doesn't magically mean that the internet forgets that the event happened. And it sounds like you wish for everyone to forget.
> The way I see it: they pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off. My level of caring about that is pretty much zero.
But your level of caring about the fact that history is being rehashed is almost surely nonzero.
>There are certain things that a decent human being does not think to joke about, and rape is one of those things.
So, you don't know a single person in your life who is actually a very decent human being but made an "unacceptable" joke some time? You don't believe people can be just ignorant about a certain issue without being horrible people?
Given that there is no confidentiality notice in the email, I don't see how either party could expect that the conversation was private.
More generally, if they didn't think it was offensive in the first place, why did they delete the joke? Why not stand behind it? Own up to it?
Do you expect some sort of mental erasure where everyone magically forgets that this happened in the first place?
> What's wrong with you? For someone pretending to be a sensitive person you're sure lacking in empathy.
Please tell me where Kyle signed a confidentiality agreement with Tom. If you point it out, I would agree that releasing the email is inappropriate.
> So, you don't know a single person in your life who is actually a very decent human being but made an "unacceptable" joke some time? You don't believe people can be just ignorant about a certain issue without being horrible people?
I fail to see how you can be ignorant about rape in the same way that I fail to see how you can be ignorant about murder or genocide. BTW: Note that I didn't use the word "unacceptable" in any of my responses here.
You are touching upon a key point, namely the long-term memory of the Internet. That's a much longer discussion, and I intentionally avoided judgment statements regarding the nature of the memory, but it would be to your benefit to act as if statements made on the Internet are in the public record
It's not about legality, it's about the expectation of privacy. Email is by default private. Here's how I see this: Tom emails Kyle about a job. Kyle turns it down because of his discomfort with the firm. Tom asks what he's talking about. He says "that one joke you once made" and immediately posts the whole thing on the internet to get internet points from his internet friends for fighting the man or some other misguided emotion.
>I fail to see how you can be ignorant about rape in the same way that I fail to see how you can be ignorant about murder or genocide.
I'm not talking about rape. I'm talking about the cultural import and context of rape jokes. That it's a topic that can potentially trigger rape victims and cause more hurt than intended is a function of our current social circumstances, and that kind of sensitivity comes with education. Some people don't have that education, and it's okay. They aren't bad people necessarily. Again, you don't know any good people who make bad jokes? I can't believe that.
>More generally, if they didn't think it was offensive in the first place, why did they delete the joke?
But that's the point! It is offensive, and they did the right thing by deleting it and apologizing. What's the beef now? I don't expect mental erasure, but the other extreme of making a blacklist of everyone who ever made a joke that made you uncomfortable isn't right either. Give people a chance to better themselves and you will have a better world. If you just keep shaming offenders till the end of time how do you ever expect them to see the light?
Statements of this category are not going to persuade anyone to your side in a debate over social tact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2a5-RrwWZ8
You're not funny enough to joke about rape is all. The problem is, neither are these rapgenius guys. Don't get me wrong, I'm also grossly offended - not as a feminist, or a decent human being, just as a comedian. :)
Let's be real, if you are offended by a joke, it almost certainly has something to do with the content of the joke. Poor joke delivery, or just unfunny jokes, are not in and of themselves offensive, nobody is "offended" by "Why did the chicken cross the road?"
Bad jokes aren't offensive, bad jokes that are also tackless may be however.
For example, here's an example from 2pac (IMO one of the greatest rappers of all time): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfXwmDGJAB8
I wonder why we take from our women
Why we rape our women, do we hate our women
I think it's time to kill for our women
Time to heal our women, be real to our womenDon't get me wrong because I love 2Pac, but 2Pac's lyrics and his actions didn't always match up.
Well, easy there, this wasn't a physical flogging in public or anything like that, it was just some fun ribbing -- the kind that RG founders themselves are especially fond of indulging in, (like telling Mark to "suck his dick" and saying things like "I'mma rape you in your mouth", etc.).
If we're really serious about have an inclusive and welcoming culture, we as a tech community should stay away from RapGenius. Let them know there are consequences to the things they say. No-one should be rewarded after saying things like "I'mma rape you in your mouth".
I can't imagine many rape victims would describe this as a "fun ribbing"
Is the content on the site itself just as offensive? If so, how do you feel about the MCs and the large numbers of album sales etc. that they attract?
Out of principle, I might decline their offer, and if I felt strongly enough I might explain why, but I'd do it in a way that's private and saves face for everyone.
Offer 2: We want your money, will you trade for our time?
If you believe time is money, they're the same thing.
Anyway, as long as my ability to work isn't impacted, I try to judge people solely based on the quality of their work. I feel like what Rap Genius is doing is tremendous, I'm happy for him and wish them the best of luck.
Personality clash is totally a respectable reason to not want to go work for someone, but posting this exchange publicly seems more than a bit childish to me and definitely unprofessional.
- Technical leadership reaching out. Not a recruiter. HUGE. Do this.
- Personal! Actual knowledge of who you are as a developer. Not just a quick scan of github and then a project name drop. (Literally had this happen to me yesterday. Ick. And soooo obvious.)
- Early appeal to "what's in it for me?" and "who will I work with?" BEFORE the "who are we?" bit.
- Dogfooding in the email. Nice touch.
Downers:
- The popped-collar, Natty Ice tone. Kind of a filters out the non-bros. But I guess it tells you about the company culture...?
- I don't know if this job is remote or local, but if it's local, show me pictures of where I'll work.
I understand why Kyle wasn't receptive (and love the creative response), but this is probably enough to move a lot of people on to that next step of the face to face meeting. Personally, I'd probably do the Hangout just to see. Now if it was Worldstar, that would be a whole other matter.
Eating your own dog food, also called dogfooding, is a slang term used to reference a scenario in which a company (usually, a computer software company) uses its own product to demonstrate the quality and capabilities of the product.
http://valleywag.gawker.com/rap-genius-frontman-blames-brain...
http://valleywag.gawker.com/rap-genius-imma-rape-you-in-your...
It also gives them an excuse to be total baller VCs and hang out with their rap idols.
As for why op is publicly posting a private email thread, it wouldn't be surprising for both sides to agree to post this content. Despite the slightly brutal reply at the end, rap genius doesn't come off looking bad at all.
http://news.rapgenius.com/Rap-genius-engineering-team-rap-ge...
The source of the submission is this tweet: https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/411662053686784000 (which gives the impression that the response was for retribution, not publicity)
The email is a bit much, though, targeting great engineers - I get that they are going for talented young engineers that can get the 'vision'... a.k.a. why you comin' at me like that, muh' fuckas should know I'm straight business when you talking business, get on the level
Why? For what exactly? How do you put up with that UI?
>Why? For what exactly?
It's interesting to see what other people think some of your favorite songs mean and you can look at music in different ways. The same reason I'll talk about good albums with friends.
> How do you put up with that UI?
I can read the content and while I'd appreciate a better design I'm not an elitist.
I could go on about this, but instead I'll give you a good example. Check out this verse by Lupe Fiasco: http://rapgenius.com/2097850
If, in a Redis sorted set, two values have the same score, retrieving a range of values that includes those two values will present them in the alphabetical order right? So in this way one of those two values with score can be cut out of the retrieval by limiting the range appropriately. This leads me to believe that each value in a sorted set should have a unique score even though the uniqueness is not forced or encouraged in any way at the point of value/score assignment. What would be a real-world use case scenario for such a structure then when?
A simple tiebreak function — such as lexicographic sorting on keys — means when the user requests "next page" via another range request, the same-scored second value will predictably show up on the beginning of next page, which is how users will expect in the real world.
Hope this helps!