A Statement About Mahbod’s Annotations on Elliot Rodger’s Manifesto | Hacker News Reader

A Statement About Mahbod’s Annotations on Elliot Rodger’s Manifesto

news.rapgenius.com

126 pointsovechtrick114 comments

I can appreciate RG's leadership having the self-awareness to see the need to make an Adult Decision in this case, but I think it's probably a mistake for them to continue hosting the Rodgers diary.

Contrary to Moghadam's comments, the diary is not particularly well-written. It's long, repetitive, weirdly detailed (the author recounts meals eaten years ago), and studded with evidence of psychopathy.

RG's style of annotation works extremely well for some kinds of writing --- song lyrics, The Great Gatsby, TS Eliot poems. What I think those things have in common is that they're hospitable to "riffing" and cross-linking; for instance, the lyrics to the ICP song where they come out of the closet as religious are totally incongruous until RG annotations inform you that they're reprised lyrics from previous ICP songs.

But riffing on Rodgers diary doesn't serve the same purpose, at least so close to the event. It is instead a minefield; almost anything you can say risks diminishing the tragedy, or misapprehending how the mind of a deeply mentally ill person functions, or, god help us, using the output of that mind as a platform on which to build suggestions on changing our culture.

There may be some point at which RG annotations will add value to this terribly sad artifact of Elliot Rodgers, but it probably won't be in 2014.

"It's long, repetitive, weirdly detailed (the author recounts meals eaten years ago), and studded with evidence of psychopathy."

That's exactly why it should be studied.

I'm not suggesting it not be studied.

You do seem to be suggesting it not be hosted on RG, which lends itself as a convenient place for public study/annotation/debate.

I agree that the quality of the annotations and conversation is likely to be low.

Yes.

As someone who was on the forums when the decision was made, I can give you some of the background. Last February, News Genius transcribed and annotated the Dorner manifesto, and got a lot of positive press. You can see the page at http://news.rapgenius.com/Christopher-dorner-manifesto-annot... and the press from Forbes at http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/02/13/christoph...

The thought was very similar in this case, in that News Genius could help annotate and pull out important sections, things that could help people understand the text. In retrospect, I believe we didn't consider fully how hard it would be to annotate, or how much more of a minefield it would be with the additional dimensions of misogyny and mental illness to consider. (Well, personally, I voted against its inclusion. But that's neither here nor there.)

I'm not sure what the right response is in this case. But that's the context.

There was a lot of confused attention surrounding the Dorner incident, in which a disgruntled former LAPD officer rationalized his carefully-planned stalking and murder of the daughter of an LAPD captain who had been partially responsible for his termination.

Part of that attention was due to a Rambo narrative that accompanied Dorner due to his military experience and the fashion in which he was (briefly) believed to be engaging Southern California police officers (no doubt this narrative was abetted by the 24/7 news cycle). Part of it was due to the style in which he wrote his manifesto. And certainly part of it was the fact that his grievances confirmed a lot of the (probably accurate) biases people have about the LAPD.

All that is a prelude to the argument that the annotations on the Dorner "manifesto" do not in fact show RG at its best. Like the Rodgers incident, the Dorner incident is tremendously sad. It was not an armed struggled between a wronged former officer and the police establishment; it was a manhunt that followed the cold-blooded murder of an innocent woman and her fiance. But you might not get that impression from clicking through the animated GIFs, lyrical references, and amplified exposition of Dorner's complaints in the annotations on the site.

Again, I think this isn't so much a problem with reading and studying the output of the mentally ill, but instead with the idea of doing that on a site that encourages random anonymous people to riff off of and respond to that output. It has the effect of turning an artifact of illness and tragedy into popular culture, which to me demeans the site almost as much as the victims.

I also agree that the annotations on the Dorner manifesto don't show NG at its best. I wasn't around at the time, but News Genius as a brand was just finding its feet, and you'll see examples of both great and terrible annotations on it. For example, http://news.rapgenius.com/1489298 is a great annotation, and perfectly epitomizes what News Genius tries to be—objective annotations on the news, highlighting facts.

But no, we didn't do a good job with the Dorner manifesto, as a whole. Part of that is due to the level of quality increase that the site has seen since then, but maybe part of that should have been a warning.

Honestly, I equate the use of RG in this case to be no more different than how the media amplifies the actions of any shooting or tragedy. It's only going to merit attention for a wrongdoing, and this could desensitize people sharing the same mindset as Elliot Rodger had.

It would be a kindness to everyone if RG simply delisted the journal for the immediate time being, and then restored it in the future, possibly a year or so from now.

the diary is not particularly well-written

depends on your standards. He's not a professional author but I think he's probably better than your average college grad.

studded with evidence of psychopathy

genuinely interested. could you point to some of these. I've been skimming it and haven't really seen that.

in fact, this struck me as empathetic

James’s mother, Kim Ellis, had just passed away from breast cancer. I cried for a bit. Kim was a very kind-hearted person, and the mother of my best friend. She had been suffering from breast cancer for several years, but I never thought she would die from it. I immediately thought of how James must be feeling. He just lost his own mother!Annotate It made me think of how horrible I would feel if the same thing happened to my own mother, just the thought alone filled me with pain.

At various points, the author describes in detail how he wanted to torture and murder any loving couple because it offended him so much. Along with his bizarre descriptions of a sexless utopia where all women are enslaved and forced to be artificially inseminated to procreate.

FWIW,

> bizarre descriptions of a sexless utopia where all women are enslaved and forced to be artificially inseminated to procreate.

...is required reading for millions of schoolchildren

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/1984/study.html

Yes, but not in the form of an endorsement.

Well policymakers do seem to like treating 1984 as an instruction manual as opposed to a satire.

Even if we stipulate that every paragraph in the diary should be taken at face value, psychopathy is not defined simply as the absence of empathy.

It's actually not really defined at all in terms of an actual medical illness. It's mostly an invention of the criminal justice system.

Sociopathy/Psycopathy is about as real as Drapetomania or hysteria. It's the modern day blasphemy, if you question the state or authority you are 'anti-social'

Uh huh.

Psycopathy is a defined condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is published by the American Psychiatric Association. The criminal justice system had nothing to do with the creation of the term.

But you're right--it's not an "actual medical illness." Mental conditions are "disorders", not "medical illnesses" since they are chronic/permanent conditions.

Really? Can you point me to where in the DSM it defines 'psychopathy', if you find an edition that old you may want to look up another disorder that stems from criminology commonly referred to as 'homosexuality', ironically homosexuality used to be part of 'sociopathy' which was closely related to 'psychopathy'.

You need the DSM V, the newest edition. In prior editions, psychopathy was not distinguished from sociopathy. I imagine that you could find it by looking through the index, however I do not have a copy of the DSM V.

I'm not sure why you bring up the characterization of homosexuality in older, long-since discarded versions of the DSM. The DSM is merely a reflection of the current state of consensus regarding psychological diagnoses. It's not an authoritative guide. As consensus changes, so does the DSM.

We understand enough about psychopathy that we can now fairly easily identify it by tests and brain scans. We can also fairly easily identify it in children at a very early age. The symptoms and behaviors are not particularly difficult to pick out. It's obviously very real. Unless you're suggesting child psychopaths have learned how to alter their own brains such that their brain scans look different than normal children and they are capable at the age of six of faking psychopathic behavior every day of their lives.

I suggest you upgrade your knowledge on the topic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-...

We have no objective tests for psychopathy, it's such a sketchy unsupported diagnosis that even the DSM which isn't exactly a pinnacle of science, won't touch it.

We have at best a debatable set of symptoms which are entirely subjective and which are provided by criminologists let alone psychologists.

It's easy to test for and show someone has a cold in a completely objective way, either your cells are infected with a virus with a given genetic pattern or they are not. There is no disease called psychopathy and there is no objective test for it.

So since you're the expert on psychopathy and we know so much about it, what is the underlying physical process for it? Is it an infection? Are the neurons misfiring? Is a certain protein misfolded? Oh wait, you can't answer any of those because it's made up pseudo-scientific bullshit. Labeling someone a psychopath is about as real as labeling them a witch, only symptoms, no cause, no mechanism, nothing.

PS. Here's the 'brain scan' evidence that homosexuality is a real 'mental disorder' LOL http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

> in fact, this struck me as empathetic

This really isn't empathy. Roger is not feeling his friend's pain—he's transferring his friend's situation to himself and feeling his own pain. He's crying in imagined self-pity.

Roger describes crying in self-pity or frustration many times in the document, even into adulthood. A quick word count:

     34 cried
     10 cry
     19 crying
      9 tears

I read (mostly) the first two thirds of the document and this is the closest Roger gets to empathy.

Otherwise Roger's depiction of himself comes off as completely self-absorbed and often unaware or unconcerned with the feelings of others. The narcissism is overwhelming.

The narcissism is a defense mechanism for a badly wounded self, it's not especially unsurprising to see an individual who uses 63 variations of the word 'cry' in a document to exhibit narcissistic behavior.

> studded with evidence of psychopathy

Very curious - what are the stylistic signatures of psycopathy?

Do another skim read through the diary and notice all the times he unabashedly confirms his belief that other human beings in his life exist to serve his interests. It's practically a motif. He doesn't merely seem upset that women won't acknowledge him, but rather that anyone he interacts with has any agency at all --- his father, his mother, his friends, his roommates.

Not that it matters, but he really doesn't seem like a psychopath. Real psychopaths tend to be brave, extroverted, narcissistic, impervious to punishment, etc. He really didn't fit. (He's a little narcissistic, but limited it to talking about his being a "perfect gentleman" and things like that. Otherwise, he tended to condemn himself--his height, physical weakness, bad fortune, etc.)

Of course, I'm basing that on his autobiography which might be nothing but bullcrap. I looked through it, and the takeaway is that he was a sullen, jealous coward his whole life--but sufficiently introspective to write 137 pages about that life in which almost nothing happened, and nothing at all happened that he himself instigated. You know, until the end. Note also that the bio was coherent and competently structured, whereas in his videos he's barely able to sputter out a normal-sounding sentence. Psychopaths tend to be eloquent and charismatic.

After a gay co-worker and I watched his Luka Magnotta creepy, incredibly narcissistic to the point of nausea selfie vids he uploaded of himself driving around with a cruisey bar soundtrack we anecdotally declared this guy mad, and an extreme closet case which could explain his odd, jealousy filled hatred for women, obsession over the men they are with and his all around girl repellent behavior.

Too bad there isn't a history eraser button we can use to retroactively deny him fame for this.

He's a little narcissistic, but limited it to talking about his being a "perfect gentleman" and things like that.

There is also this part:

"I am Elliot Rodger...Magnificent, glorious, supreme, eminent, Divine! I am the closest thing there is to a living god."

And that is a delusion he maintains to protect himself from the pain of the feeling of inferiority he feels for himself.

It is a mixture of psychopathy and megalomania. He expresses a belief that women exist to provide men with sex, and his anger stems from a belief that women have been given the power to choose who to have sex with yet failed to choose him. He believes that he is better than everyone else and is angry that women are having sex with "inferior" men. He does not think killing other people is a problem; he thinks that his own death is the worst outcome of his plot, made necessary only because the alternative is to live in a jail cell. He also describes killing his roommates as necessary, lest they get in the way of his plot (which included torturing people in his apartment).

In his ideal world, there would be a benevolent dictator -- "benevolent" in this context includes exterminating women by starvation, save for a few that are kept locked up in labs where they exist only for reproduction -- and he suggests himself as this dictator. According to his theory if there are no women there will be no sex, and men can rise to higher levels of achievement (notice how he blames his shortcomings on others). He also believes that there would be no love in such a world, though he seems to have a poorly developed notion of love as an emotion (he speaks of love in terms of sex, and never associates love with any specific person other than himself).

You should read "Without Conscience" by Dr. Robert D. Hare. He has been studying psychopaths for decades, and gives a detailed overview of what they are like. Everyone is falsely claiming that Elliot Rodger was a psychopath. He was not. Psychopathy consists of a collection of particular traits together, and while he has a few of them, he does not have the correct combination.

Kind of off-topic to your point, but I found it interesting that he got so detailed about things he is unlikely to remember (his birth, meals on very young birthdays) but there are a lot of verifiable things he got wrong in the timeline (he claimed Finding Memo was being played on TV in 2001, or that Xbox 360 was brand new in 2007). All of this is written very confidently.

> god help us, using the output of that mind as a platform on which to build suggestions on changing our culture

Why not? There's what to do lessons and what not to do lessons.

From what I read in the essay he talks continually about how he lives in a beautiful, wealthy suburb, has an apartment and BMW, nice clothes and so forth. I don't watch teenage television shows like the OC, The Hills or whatever, but from this material perspective he had the perfect life. Yet his parents split up, he didn't get along with his movie premiere attending father's new wife, and he was isolated and cut off from human contact. He is miserable. He even says repeatedly he goes crazy watching guys with much less money have so much "social success".

Something can be learned from him. That buying into the idea that money alone buys happiness is something close to insanity. That growing up in a wealthy community where image and status are everything, even among kids, might not be healthy. That close friendships and lovers are more important than the BMW he continually refers to.

I can see shades of this when I walk into a post Series A startup on Saturday at 8 PM and see that 95% of the office is there working, many of the people in their 20's. They all think they are going to be the Mark Zuckerberg. It seems like insanity to me. It reminds me of all the people I know who were having trouble in their marriages, so they would work until 6, 7, 8 doing busy work so they wouldn't have to go home. Usually in a few months time I hear from them they are separating from their spouse. Some people see work as an escape from their other problems. Our society being run as it is, by those who it is run by, this is not much frowned upon as a real problem.

I can easily imagine this kid growing up the son of some guy who was in early on some hot startup, with the kid now living in Palo Alto, Altadena or somewhere...

> Why not?

Because it's just one kid. The sample size is too small.

Sorry, but no.

Ok, not everybody is going to kill girls because they rejected you, but almost every man understand at least some of the feelings + frustrations he experienced (especially virgins).

To deny this is to deny the huge elephant in the room - the fact that men do have the primal need for sex, and when it's denied/suppressed, bad things happen as that need goes unfulfilled.

You know, speaking as a dude it's pretty insulting to see you insinuate that I'm some pent up murder machine held in check only so long as I keep my dick wet.

You're probably not. But if the mere observation that some men do risky, strange, violent things as part of their drive for sex strikes you as a personal insult, then you are too sensitive.

I think he's offended that one crazy person's actions have turned into a generalization about men (yes, "some men" qualifies it, but since you can't tell "some men" from all the other men, any action that's meant to affect these "some men" affects all men, hence nullifying the qualifier. Furthermore, your grandparent didn't even use the "some").

A much fairer (and still true) statement would be "some people do risky, strange, violent things as part of their drive for sex." If you want to further dissect the issue into the different kind of strange and violent things men do vs. other genders' behaviors, that's fine too, but by comparing Rodgers to "some men," the implication is made that his actions are endemic to men (they're not -- they're endemic to violent, crazy people).

Maybe a more cogent point is, crazy violent people find a ready culture of misogyny to hang their urges on. Again and again and again, its women that are the target. This can and should be changed. I hope one day soon its no more accepted to publish 'player handbooks' than it is to distribute KKK race hate messages.

I'm not focusing on his actions here. His actions were the result of pent up, dangerous, toxic emotions. The same emotions that are felt (albeit to a lesser degree) by most men.

Most men just channel that into something else, like entrepreneurship (ie Zuckerberg), or drugs/alcohol/video games.

You've basically just tried to excuse rape.

Yeah, so did Terrence: ""I am a human being, I consider nothing that is human alien to me."

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

So? We are capable of empathy and understanding of lots of things, that being ethical we wouldn't do. It's not like a murderer or rapist is some kind of alien, that we cannot even comprehend. We do it all the time, in talk and in art. E.g:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/therapy/triggerinside.html

If you feel frustrated to the point where you fantasize about killing people who reject your advances, please get help.

That's an extremely unfair reading of the parent comment. If you want to make that as a general point, at least depersonalize it, addressing to 'someone' or 'anyone', rather than a second-person direct-address.

I think you're underestimating the usefulness of simply showing this document in a clean UI. I could care less about the annotation of this but found myself captivated by the contents of the diary on rapgenius, the same way as we get captivated by television footage of surreal events.

> I can appreciate RG's leadership having the self-awareness to see the need to make an Adult Decision in this case, but I think it's probably a mistake for them to continue hosting the Rodgers diary.

Rap Genius is in still somewhat in that growth phase of its life where it wants to attain and secure as many users as it can. The Rogers story is something a lot of young people are curious to see, and if RG can be a place where they can see it, that means they're doing well. Purely as a business decision, they should and probably will keep hosting it.

You won't believe the amount of essays I had to read (whenever we would peer-review essays in middle and high school) that had to do with serial killers, massacres, etc. This is simply a subject a lot of people are fascinated by -- most importantly, people in the right age group that Rap Genius is interested in.

I should note that if you disagree, you should be voicing your outrage at the mass media, Scribd (for continuing to host the unabridged Rogers documents), WashPo, etc. etc., not just Rap Genius.

RG's mission is to annotate. The size, content-matter, and closeness to a violent event make Rodger's 'Twisted Life' a very challenging document for their system... which is exactly why I think they must host it.

It's widely available, and people are interested. Either RG-style annotation helps people come to terms with it, or not. But they have to try, to find out – and possibly improve their practices if they're found wanting.

Context: http://gawker.com/rap-genius-co-founders-creepy-comments-on-...

Mahbod compliments several of Rodger's sentences as "artful" and/or "beautifully written". That is okay, if ill-timed. One can make a stylistic statement about Mein Kampf without endorsing its message.

He also, however, speculates that Rodger's "sister is smokin' hot." That is violently inappropriate, particularly given the misogynistic nature of Elliot's crimes.

stepping away from the context for a moment, the writing is also fucking terrible and overwrought. it reads like a cross between ignatius reilly and sephiroth

Speculating Rodger's sister was attractive might be mildly inappropriate, but, it's also relevant to understanding the nature of his killings, particularly as they seem to be based around sexual frustration.

I think 'violently inappropriate' is being used by the internet echo chamber to draw attention to themselves.

There was, by the way, a german artist (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serdar_Somuncu) who commented that actually reading Mein Kampf exposes it as a very bad and simple book and no one should be surprised of Hitlers actions later after reading. Also, one of his point is that it is terrible in style and mostly rambling.

He also went on a tour and actually read the book on > 1000 occasions and won multiple prices.

Now, imagine Serdar doing that in 1946. He would - for good reasons - be ostracized.

Mahbod, even if he were "only" commenting on stylistic things, shows that he is lacking something very important: tact and empathy. This is not a triviality and as such not "okay". He also didn't frame the comment in any way (e.g. "I am surprised to see such an artfully...").

He should have seen that coming. If he hadn't, he shouldn't be leading any community.

> violently inappropriate

Really? Violent?

Personally, I think this is a long time coming. Like, Tom, I have nothing but respect for Maboo, but I think many, many people have raised the point that his, for lack of a better word, "antics" are holding the site back. I know a lot of people in the HN community have been sharply critical of him, and for good reason. Maybe that's the main driver here, and Maboo's absolutely inappropriate response is the catalyst.

I don't know much about RG's history, but I wonder if his antics are partly why the site was so successful initially? From the little I've seen of RG over the years it seems like they rely heavily on gimmicks and antics as a promotional tool (I guess that's sort of the MO for the music industry though).

I absolutely believe the site couldn't have gotten where it was today without Mahbod at its head. But I think that the way forward is, regrettably, without him for a while. I fully believe he can come back from this more mature and focused. But I think its going to require a bit of soul-searching.

I'm sure he will land on his feet quite well with his connections (and equity no doubt). Everybody goofs and the permanent and public nature of the internet can be very unforgiving. I wish him nothing but the best in the future with his health and career.

Mahbod has been fired (i.e. not "resigned") due to these comments.

http://recode.net/2014/05/26/rap-genius-co-founder-moghadam-...

That's literally what the OP says, from a primary source.

> The entire group of founder already has wallowed into a number of controversial issues, calling attention mostly to their idiotic hijinks than to their business.

A claim like that should carry a source at least. Not all of us follow RapGenius' every move.

Take your pick: http://valleywag.gawker.com/search?q=rap+genius

Fired or asked to resigned ... pretty much the same thing, other than trying spin it like he resigned under his own volition.

Obviously Mahbod's latest annotations were inappropriate. Based on his past behavior, these recent antics should not come as much of a surprise.

As an aside, it has always amazed me how many people over the years have failed to realize Rap Genius' gimmick is just that, a gimmick. It's their attempt at using an admittedly off-color flavor of comedy to build their brand. Said brand is heavily rooted in rap, which is one of the most politically incorrect and offensive mediums of pop culture in existence today.

It stands to reason that when the Rap Genius founders are in character, their behavior should not be taken literally as a reflection of who they really are.

A good example of this is when they were featured on stage at TechCrunch Disrupt 2013:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5773556

Most people simply took them literally, became offended, and jumped on the revulsion bandwagon. Others understood that the RG guys were essentially mocking the startup scene and the rap scene at the same time, in effect making fun of themselves.

---

In Mahbod's case specifically, it seemed like he was aiming for humor that went right up to the line but didn't cross it. Unfortunately, comedy is a hit-or-miss endeavor and some of the misses were bound to cross that line. Add to that his medical issues potentially adversely affecting his judgement, and it's no wonder.

Was what he said inappropriate? Absolutely.

Should he have been fired for it? Debatable.

Should we assume he's a terrible human being (as some other comments have implied)? Certainly not.

Apparently this guy had a brain tumor and this wasn't the first time he's publicly embarrassed the company. He tweeted from the RapGenius account "WARREN BUFFETT CAN SUCK MY DICK".

http://www.fastcompany.com/3021564/most-creative-people/how-...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/02/22/rap_genius_wa...

The brain tumor was removed...and the public behavior was unchanged.

http://valleywag.gawker.com/rap-genius-frontman-blames-brain...

Sad but the brain tumour could still be the reason for his behaviour.

We don't know nearly enough about the brain to argue that the removal must restore the previous personality.

Behavior like that is not acceptable for someone in a position of authority at a company no matter what the context. (It's not clear what Moghadam's specific role at Rap Genius was, but he did have a seat on the board of directors)

It's the same reason that we shouldn't let blind people fly commercial airliners. Flying requires vision. Running a company requires good judgement.

>Behavior like that is not acceptable for someone in a position of authority at a company no matter what the context.

Says who? It's not like the company is Disney. For some companies such antics are par for the course (e.g a gangsta rap record company).

Things that are "par for the course" aren't necessarily acceptable, as we all know.

Well, you have to define it then.

"Unaccetable" for running a company with profit, or "unaccptable" for your moral code? Because the former sure ain't the case.

Lots of people are douchebags without having brain tumours.

>but went beyond that into gleeful insensitivity and misogyny. All of which is contrary to everything we’re trying to accomplish at Rap Genius.

Yeah, because otherwise most rap is all about sensitivity and feminism. I mean, they'd never embrace Ice Cube's records there, right?

I just see corporate drones fearing for their dollars because of the backslash against this guy's annotations.

The noble thing to do would have been to stand behind their colleague. I'd take a "misogynist" over backstabbing people throwing their friends to the lions. At least a misogynist could either be joking or made to change his mind about women. But their actions are all for personal interests and their bottom line.

You're not going to find very many people in tech that are going to get within a million miles of seriously discussing that Rap Genius is filled with bigoted, racist, misogynist content.

The political correct world today is strictly about inflicting damage upon populist targets, while not targeting other bigots that don't qualify for the agenda. It's a deranged movement of convenient targets.

Who are RapGenius' investors? Who is bankrolling these people?

Andreessen Horowitz, to the tune of $15M. Rap Genius was also a part of YC S11.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/03/andreessen-horowitz-iinvest...

http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/rap-genius

Thanks.

The same people who bankroll(ed) GitHub. This is my shocked face.

That is a tired, cheap, superficial point that is beneath this site. If you want to build a case against valley startup culture --- and there sure are cases to be made --- try to do it without creating a caricature of everyone else who has concerns as well.

"Not all VC's."

Now you're making a joke out of "not all men". Are you sure you're helping?

Hmmm? "Not all men" is usually presented as a joke. For example, [0]. Similar riffs can be found involving, for example, the Kool-Aid Man.

As an aside, your comment is very patronizing.

[0] http://i.imgur.com/ZS87l6M.png

Yes, both Github and Rap Genius are obviously utterly evil corporations and the source of their connection, which is also the sole source of their existence, must necessarily have spawned their evilness.

Downvoted for at least a triple non sequitur and not adding anything on topic, except for an attempt to derail it into yet another discussion about the thing that must not be.

Rap Genius and GitHub aren't even in the same league.

GitHub had some serious HR issues and internal mismanagement.

Rap Genius has an entire brand, emphasized through every public appearance, of utter douchebaggery.

And Y Combinator.

Wasn't Rap Genius already pretty well-known before they were accepted into YC? You could do a site that annotated sheet music for Polka tunes, or annotated cat pictures with more different cat pictures, and YC would still probably accept you if your traction looked like the first few years of RG's.

Sounds like somebody wanted to get rid of a co-founder and found a great opportunity to do it.

If it was just the annotations I'd be surprised, but this is just another incident by Mahbod that has caused RapGenius bad press. It was the last straw.

But they are still turning violence against women into page views.

But not any money since they don't have any advertising.

And employees of charities turn their causes into paycheques. Relationships need not be selfless to be mutually beneficial.

What's the difference between this and any news outlet?

Nobody loves glorifying a murderous rampage quite like CNN et al.

Are you talking about rap music or the Isla Vista massacre?

don't forget a majority of the victims were men. 3 stabbed in their apartment and 1 shot. :(

Because his planned attack on the sorority failed. The manifesto is gynocidal.

.....and?

And his videos were specifcally saying he hated everyone.

He was a severely mentally ill sick person who is now dead and took innocent people with him. Seriously, misogyny doesn't have all that much to do with it, from my perspective. Yes, he was a misogynist, but the unsaid implication I've seen all over the web is that "All misogynists are just like this guy!", which doesn't follow, as far as I'm concerned.

I just write misogynists off as sad people that I won't associate with, not violent murderers waiting for a chance to "show the world".

Part of the fear that many people have is that you can't always tell the difference between a garden-variety "just angry at chicks" guy and a "one bad day away from taking out a sorority guy" until it is too late.

Yeah, I'll grant that. Serial killers throughout history often hid their broken-ness for years while getting away with it all... but this isn't a common occurrence. This isn't something that should factor into a persons risk-assessment while going about their daily life. This is a sad, messed up situation, but the reason it's so news-worthy is because this doesn't happen that often (thank <insert deity>)

It's not misogny because 'serial killers' - that is a group who are overwhelmingly men, overwhelming same, overwhelmingky kill women and overwhelmingly use sadistic sexual violence and mutilation.

> Its newsworthy because it doesn't happen that often. You are kidding me right? Sexual violence is continuous.

Oh for christ's sake, this is obviously pointless. You win. I give. Uncle. Whatever.

Also, you're wrong. And if you think misogyny (or whatever cause du jour we're using today) creates serial killers, and not mental illness then you're more than welcome to believe that. Plenty of psychologists say you're entirely incorrect[0], and I'll defer to them on this, but this "discussion" is utterly pointless, as you cherry pick whichever sentence you feel like pulling apart and ignoring the rest of it -- which are facts for the most part, not my opinion.

[0] http://time.com/114354/elliot-rodger-ucsb-misogyny/

Ps. You know, I'm not even arguing that cultural misogyny isn't a problem. I think it is, and am a big believer that we have a problem in our tech industry that we need to fix. What I'm arguing is that you're currently no better than those who blame video games for shootings, ignoring the real cause, which is broken, sick people.

EDIT:

Oh and you're wrong. Victims are not "overwhelmingly" women, nor is it "overwhelmingly" because of sadistic motives. See [1]:

  Characteristics of U.S. Serial Killer Victims
  
  Sex     N%
  Male   
  3,854   44.54%
  
  Female
  4,799   55.46%

[1] http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information...

You're right I was generalising from Scotland/the UK. The definition of Serial Killer being 2 or more unrelating killings. In Scotland there is somewhere between 1 and 3 multiple murders a year, not all of which are serial killings by the strict definition.

http://www.scccj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/0124207_h...

In the serial killing figures you show the numbers are overwhelming dominated by the US where the high availability of guns make multiple murders more common - and the number of sexual serial killers much less as a proportion.

In Europe, I stand by my statement that serial killers are overwhelmingly, etc, etc...

This kind of mass murder isn't a common occurrence. But sexual violence against women absolutely is a common occurrence. The way women feel terrorized about this is a real thing. It brings up both unpleasant memories and legitimate fears.

This is scary shit. It is OK to be scared by it.

> Yes, he was a misogynist, but the unsaid implication I've seen all over the web is that "All misogynists are just like this guy!", which doesn't follow, as far as I'm concerned.

Not all misogynists will act out in physical violence, but misogyny provides fuel for those that do and it also provides excuses for those actions when they occur. Ultimately misogyny encourages violence against women, period.

> I just write misogynists off as sad people that I won't associate with, not violent murderers waiting for a chance to "show the world".

Which is a privilege you have since you are not the target of misogyny. Women who suffer direct harassment and violence because of misogyny don't get the chance to be so nonchalant about that behavior and cultural influence.

I'll gladly agree with you.

But that is not this case. This was severe mental illness, not misogyny. More to the point, to those who said "he killed men because he couldn't kill the sorority" miss the fact that he stabbed two men to death first.

This case was someone who was very very sick, and decided to lash out at the world, and innocent people paid the price. Those who attempt to paint it as "MRA's are dangerous" (which they are, there is a brand new petition on WhiteHouse.gov saying exactly that) or anything other than it actually is confuse the hell out of me.

You're not supposed to talk about the four men he killed, including the three he stabbed to death. It ruins the script.

...and what script is that?

yeah. at first i kinda had a knee jerk reaction to mpt accept the "misogyny" script, because feminists do this about everything, but after reading about him calling women a virus and wanting to exterminate all of them, I have to agree.

No more so than any news site.

I wish they had they shown the annotations that caused the firing. The Valleywag link elsewhere has one screenshot, but other than being in poor taste I'm not sure why this rates a firing/step down.

It's about context: the annotations were glorifying a manifesto that was the prelude to mass murder.

So, some parts clearly were, right, complimenting the writing style and whatnot (which, honestly, wasn't great, but whatever)?

That comment about his sister I viewed more as teasing/disparaging the author--your mileage may vary.

Reading a bit more about the dude from Rapgenius, though, he seems like kind of a gangsta-wannabe tool.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com