Justine Tunney
August 7, 2014 10:35 AM   Subscribe

Just who IS Justine Tunney? Is she a "far-left socialist" or a "far-right monarchist"? Or is she just a very talented troll?
posted by josher71 (145 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite

 
Who is Joshua Goldberg?
posted by boo_radley at 10:36 AM on August 7, 2014


The question is not "who is Justine Tunney?", but rather "why is she still drawing a paycheck from Google?"
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:39 AM on August 7, 2014 [10 favorites]


Whoever she is, she has a limitless reserve of time on her hands. I lost an hour of my life talking to her on twitter some months ago, near what seems to have been the beginning of her reign of terror. I thought I was going to die of frustration. I finally had to just stop and move on with my life.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:42 AM on August 7, 2014 [5 favorites]


The question is not "who is Justine Tunney?", but rather "why is she still drawing a paycheck from Google?"

Really? Google is supposed to hire and fire people based on their political beliefs? Would we have all be cool with Google firing her in her Occupy Wall St. phase?
posted by yoink at 10:45 AM on August 7, 2014 [7 favorites]


She is so annoying, I would really prefer not to feed the troll (or, not to feed the non-troll -- I'm not picky).

She's clever but lots of people are clever. Basically, she parlayed some technical knowledge and some Machiavellianism into control over the vestiges of Occupy Wall Street's online messaging. Now she uses it to put on an egotistical theater of the absurd.

I don't think it's really important whether she means what she says. She's basically a squatter who locked down some valuable property in Internet namespace (the OWS Twitter). We should listen to voices who actually speak for people, or who have something valuable to say -- we should try not to let our attention get grabbed by whoever can cadge the keys to a communication channel.

"why is she still drawing a paycheck from Google?"

I assume that she's doing her job duties, and I can't think of anything she's done that's a firing offense.

And I wouldn't rule out the consideration that Google likes to be connected to people with influence, and Tunney might wind up with some lasting influence.
posted by grobstein at 10:48 AM on August 7, 2014 [12 favorites]


Google is supposed to hire and fire people based on their political beliefs?

No, but I'm pretty sure they'd be well within their right to fire someone for shouting I AM A GOOGLE EMPLOYEE in the same breath as SLAVERY WASN'T SO BAD because of how poorly it reflects on them as a public-facing company. She dragged Google into it, I'm really, really surprised they haven't extricated themselves yet.
posted by griphus at 10:49 AM on August 7, 2014 [29 favorites]


Did she ever actually self-identify as a socialist? I think Chu's just flat wrong to claim that — my recollection was that in her Occupy phase she was espousing some incoherent flavor of anarcho-capitalism. Obviously the answer to the broader question is loon, in any case.
posted by RogerB at 10:51 AM on August 7, 2014


I vote "troll."
posted by entropicamericana at 10:53 AM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


Well, if a guy can be fired because he donated money to anti-gay marriage
posted by k5.user at 10:53 AM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


It might not violate employee social networking policies of Google, griphus, as long as she's clear that she's speaking for herself and not representing the views or policies of her employer.

The last couple of largish tech companies I've worked for had policies that generally centered around that concept of speaking of ones own beliefs and not speaking for/of the company except on topics which one was specifically empowered to expand or tweet upon.
posted by Buttons Bellbottom at 10:53 AM on August 7, 2014


No, but I'm pretty sure they'd be well within their right to fire someone for shouting I AM A GOOGLE EMPLOYEE in the same breath as SLAVERY WASN'T SO BAD because of how poorly it reflects on them as a public-facing company. She dragged Google into it, I'm really, really surprised they haven't extricated themselves yet.

Yeah, it may be that whoever the relevant people are at Google just haven't been following the story.

Or maybe she has had a conversation with a supervisor along the lines of, "Oh, btw, I also have this satirical fire-breathing online persona that pretends to be pro-slavery. I bring up my connection to Google in order to sharpen the critique of reactionary, technocratic thinking. It's a long game." And I would tell her not to do it anyway, but maybe the person at Google is more open-minded.
posted by grobstein at 10:56 AM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


Maybe she is trying to get fired for her views.

Maybe her bosses think she's right!

Okay I have to stop thinking about this.
posted by grobstein at 10:57 AM on August 7, 2014 [6 favorites]


The question is not "who is Justine Tunney?", but rather "why is she still drawing a paycheck from Google?"

Because, presumably, she still does the job they pay her for. Both this comment and the Gawker piece are making a reprehensible suggestion; no one should be fired just for voicing their insane, repugnant political views.
posted by RogerB at 10:58 AM on August 7, 2014 [3 favorites]


Google is totally out of control and she fits it perfectly. Quite possibly future POTUS material.
posted by colie at 10:58 AM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


I'm not signing in to any service before reading anything. There should be an upfront about that in the FPP.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:01 AM on August 7, 2014 [6 favorites]


Yeah, firing a software engineer (who is otherwise doing their job) because they espouse political views I disagree with, elsewhere and not in the name of the company, is a real slippery slope that we should NOT be going down.
posted by Inkoate at 11:02 AM on August 7, 2014 [5 favorites]


...as long as she's clear that she's speaking for herself and not representing the views or policies of her employer.

I just checked out her Twitter profile and while it doesn't any longer, I'm 75% sure it used to indicate she was a Google employee, which would juxtapose her tweets and her employer in a way I can't imagine they'd appreciate. It just says "my views are my own" now, but there have been at least a few prominent firings recently proving that sort of disclaimer isn't enough anymore when you're tied to your employer in an obvious way.

And I would tell her not to do it anyway, but maybe the person at Google is more open-minded.

Yeah I'm pretty stumped as to how conspicuous the absence of Google saying or doing anything is. Maybe they're okay with it, maybe they don't know, maybe they don't care. But the bigger this gets the more likely I think we'll see a response.

...no one should be fired just for voicing their insane, repugnant political views.

Even when the tweet indicates that your existence as the tweeter's coworker is reviled by them? Tunney's said some hateful stuff, but not against any protected classes (as far as I know) but there have been numerous firings for racist and homophobic tweets, and the minorities/LGBT/etc. people who are the coworkers of the tweeter could be able to claim a hostile work environment.
posted by griphus at 11:02 AM on August 7, 2014 [7 favorites]


If you think you know who Justine Tunney is, write it down on a piece of paper, throw it away and try not to think about it. You'll be glad you did.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:02 AM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


cringey interview between Tunney and the Emoprog Army Radio Hour, a comedy/leftism podcast
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:04 AM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


Like I'm pretty sure regardless of how good of an engineer you are, if you spend your free time at work browsing Stormfront, you shouldn't be immune to disciplinary action because you have freedom of opinion.
posted by griphus at 11:05 AM on August 7, 2014 [6 favorites]


I'm sure firing her has been on the minds of a few people at Google. Every single thing about her screams "suing Google for wrongful termination and speaking vocally and passionately about it to everyone on the internet leading to a PR nightmare though" so maybe they're a bit wary and figuring stuff out.
posted by naju at 11:06 AM on August 7, 2014 [13 favorites]


I'm not signing in to any service before reading anything. There should be an upfront about that in the FPP.

Which link requires that?
posted by josher71 at 11:07 AM on August 7, 2014


Second link. Quora.
posted by queensissy at 11:08 AM on August 7, 2014


I didn't realize. Maybe the mods can make a note.
posted by josher71 at 11:09 AM on August 7, 2014


I confess I'm a bit surprised to come across a woman who is into the Dark Enlightenment stuff. That's always seemed like a boy's club, what with the MRA overlap..
posted by brundlefly at 11:10 AM on August 7, 2014 [3 favorites]


Just who IS Justine Tunney?

She is one of those dark enlightenment people.
posted by chrchr at 11:11 AM on August 7, 2014


I don't think she should be fired for her views. Then again, people get fired for putting photos on Facebook that make them look merely unprofessional, and incidents like that tend to attract people gleefully saying "what did you expect? You are always representing your company, idiot!" So I am experiencing some cognitive dissonance.
posted by en forme de poire at 11:11 AM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


Then again, people get fired for putting photos on Facebook that make them look merely unprofessional, and incidents like that tend to attract people gleefully saying "what did you expect? You are always representing your company, idiot!" So I am experiencing some cognitive dissonance.

Maybe the people who gleefully say that aren't the same people who think you shouldn't fire people for their political views? Cognitive dissonance solved (you're welcome).
posted by yoink at 11:16 AM on August 7, 2014 [3 favorites]


Man, I don't think she should be fired for her views either, but in the Valleywag piece the reporter tries to setup an interview with her and she refers them to the google press office. She should be fired for *that*.
posted by chrchr at 11:16 AM on August 7, 2014 [4 favorites]


regardless of how good of an engineer you are, if you spend your free time at work browsing Stormfront, you shouldn't be immune to disciplinary action because you have freedom of opinion.

You're muddying the waters with the "at work" thing; obviously political expression is constrained while you're on the clock, and obviously a hostile work environment could indeed be created by certain kinds of political expression. None of that's remotely the same as wanting someone fired for tweeting/expressing their own views on their own time, however repugnant those views are.

people gleefully saying "what did you expect? You are always representing your company, idiot!" So I am experiencing some cognitive dissonance.

Presumably those are, you know, different people?
posted by RogerB at 11:17 AM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


I confess I'm a bit surprised to come across a woman who is into the Dark Enlightenment stuff. That's always seemed like a boy's club, what with the MRA overlap..

She's the sort of woman who just isn't like other girls.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:20 AM on August 7, 2014 [18 favorites]


brundlefly: "That's always seemed like a boy's club, what with the MRA overlap.."

Sadly there's no shortage of MRA women, either - Tunney's a way away from being unique in attaching herself to a movement that mandates her own oppression.
posted by emmtee at 11:21 AM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


MartinWisse: "She's the sort of woman who just isn't like other girls."

You're not referring to her being a transgendered woman here, are you?
posted by boo_radley at 11:22 AM on August 7, 2014


You're muddying the waters with the "at work" thing; obviously political expression is constrained while you're on the clock, and obviously a hostile work environment could indeed be created by certain kinds of political expression.

So where does a tweet like this fall: "All this diversity nonsense makes me wonder if the only reason Google hired me is because I'm a minority. If so, I should just kill myself."
posted by griphus at 11:23 AM on August 7, 2014 [3 favorites]


So where does a tweet like this fall: "All this diversity nonsense makes me wonder if the only reason Google hired me is because I'm a minority. If so, I should just kill myself."

It falls into 'attention-seeking gone mad' territory. I think if you worked for the BBC and said the same thing you'd be disciplined. But possibly the 'just kill myself' throwaway keeps it just the right side of doable.
posted by colie at 11:28 AM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


MartinWisse: She's the sort of woman who just isn't like other girls.

Sorry if I have misconstrued this but if not, that's a really shitty thing for someone to say who, from their posts and comments on this site, I would absolutely expect better from.
posted by Len at 11:29 AM on August 7, 2014


And bear in mind I'm absolutely not saying "that tweet right there should get her fired." Honestly, I'm not about to make a case as to whether she should be fired past the fact that she could be because this is neither my circus nor my monkeys. But the reason we're all talking about Google is because she has very, very clearly and repeatedly touted her position as a Google employee.

But possibly the 'just kill myself' throwaway keeps it just the right side of doable.

I will hand it to her that she is very, very good at not crossing certain lines and being effective enough with her hyperbole to create doubt as to what she's really saying.
posted by griphus at 11:30 AM on August 7, 2014 [3 favorites]


griphus: this is neither my circus nor my monkeys

Yeah, so where are your circus and your monkeys? I ordered them, like, three weeks ago.
posted by Len at 11:32 AM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


I don't think google should fire her; refer her to their EAP, perhaps.
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:34 AM on August 7, 2014


Mouthbreathing Machiavellis Dream of a Silicon Reich
One day in March of this year, a Google engineer named Justine Tunney created a strange and ultimately doomed petition at the White House website. The petition proposed a three-point national referendum, as follows:
1. Retire all government employees with full pensions.
2. Transfer administrative authority to the tech industry.
3. Appoint [Google executive chairman] Eric Schmidt CEO of America.

This could easily be written off as stunt, a flamboyant act of corporate kiss-assery, which, on one level, it probably was. But Tunney happened to be serious. “It’s time for the U.S. Regime to politely take its exit from history and do what’s best for America,” she wrote. “The tech industry can offer us good governance and prevent further American decline.”

Welcome to the latest political fashion among the California Confederacy: total corporate despotism.
Consider the Six Californias, pushed by a Silicon Valley VC, which is more about freeing SV from state power.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:37 AM on August 7, 2014 [12 favorites]


Yoink and RogerB, my point is that firing someone for merely posting a picture that is too "blue" is widely seen as legitimate grounds for termination. My cognitive dissonance is about the extremely different standards that appear to be applied to Justine Tunney vs., say, Lindsey Stone or Ashley Payne.
posted by en forme de poire at 11:39 AM on August 7, 2014


You're not referring to her being a transgendered woman here, are you?

No, that would be horrible. How the hell do you get that?
posted by MartinWisse at 11:51 AM on August 7, 2014 [14 favorites]


Can we get off the people-should-be-fired-from-their-jobs-for-holding-views-I-find-reprehensible kick? This vindictive horseshit masquerading as social justice is seriously off putting.
posted by echocollate at 11:57 AM on August 7, 2014 [4 favorites]


Well, if a guy can be fired because he donated money to anti-gay marriage

Brendan Eich was not fired; he resigned.
posted by joethefob at 12:04 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


Ugh, this tweet at the top of the Gawker piece: Maybe we should bring back slavery then. At least slaves got free food and housing. It's not just morally reprehensible, it's fucking historically ignorant. Slaves suffered from wide-spread malnutrition and ailments like rickets and scurvy, routinely stole food to survive, lost children to malnutrition, grew their own crops to supplement the inadequate diet provided by their owners, and often constructed their own goddamn houses. The historian in me despises this person for their stupidity and inaccuracy, while the rest of me despises her for her personal beliefs.
posted by Snarl Furillo at 12:08 PM on August 7, 2014 [37 favorites]


I winced when I saw that too, but I think Martin was referencing that "I'm not a joyless feminist harridan, I'm a cool girl, I'm basically one of the guys" trope.
posted by en forme de poire at 12:08 PM on August 7, 2014 [27 favorites]


Yeah, MartinWisse. Sorry if I misread you.
posted by Len at 12:11 PM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


I know what will help! Let's give the sociopath more attention!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:11 PM on August 7, 2014 [3 favorites]


I place my hand above me, in front of my head. I move it to a position behind but still above my head such that it transiently occupies the space directly over my head. While doing this I make a "whooshing" sound.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 12:12 PM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


Brendan Eich was not fired; he resigned.

As I said in the thread on that, he resigned in much the same way Nixon did.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:14 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


Is this person within their right to say whatever they want on their own time? Yes. Is this person abusing their right by deliberately provoking social discord for no legitimate end other than personal gain or notoriety? Sure looks that way. Unsubscribe if that's not your thing.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:17 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


I mean, I've known succesful, powerful people whose open personal political views were so horrific they spoke gleefully about how great it would be to boil all the liberals in oil. Why one set of standards for the execs and another for the grunts?
posted by saulgoodman at 12:21 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


someone recently posted a comment here with a link to the emoprog army podcast interview with her, which was...... really something else

also whoever you were, thank you, this podcast is fantastic. funny leftists interviewing interesting people, be still my beating heart
posted by p3on at 12:22 PM on August 7, 2014


Can we get off the people-should-be-fired-from-their-jobs-for-holding-views-I-find-reprehensible kick? This vindictive horseshit masquerading as social justice is seriously off putting.

Do you not think that she's making her employer look bad with her views?
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:22 PM on August 7, 2014


quora link w/o reg rqd
posted by maggieb at 12:22 PM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


Is she in charge of setting corporate strategy or hiring policy for Google? If so, there'd be a case for more serious civil and possibly criminal charges if a pattern of discriminatory behavior could be shown. As it is, she's a nobody desperately trying to become a somebody. She may be trying to ellicit some kind of overreaction as part of a bigger agenda to shape law. Either way, why bother caring about her vile little tweets?
posted by saulgoodman at 12:28 PM on August 7, 2014


Do you not think that she's making her employer look bad with her views?

I think it doesn't matter. I can believe some of the things she says are reprehensible while also believing her employment should be based on her job performance and whatever company policies are applicable. I also think it's up to the company and not me to evaluate the latter.

Some ideas and opinions are unpopular. A mature society isn't afraid of engaging those ideas on their merits. A mature society doesn't hold the threat of someone's termination against them like a gun to the temple to enforce right thinking or right expression. And decent people don't do so and pretend it's for the good of society.
posted by echocollate at 12:30 PM on August 7, 2014 [5 favorites]


My take is different. She has some serious personality/mental health/behavioral issues. Google should recognize that their employee is suffering from some serious aliment and do something about it.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:31 PM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


That Quora link makes her sound like the sort of person that Tim Chevalier spoke about in his piece at ModelViewCulture: someone who is given a free pass to be abhorrent in the social arena because she is technically skilled.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:33 PM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


You can't pathologize unpopular political attitudes or speech away, MisanthropicPainforest.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:34 PM on August 7, 2014 [5 favorites]


I think its beyond simply unpopular
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:35 PM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


Let's not forget that Justine Tunney is also an active 'member' of 4Chan's /pol/ forum. That explains a lot right there.
posted by nerdler at 12:36 PM on August 7, 2014 [12 favorites]


I think that explains everything right there, and we can all look forward to more "let me share my incredibly transgressive opinions with you, BUT WAIT AM I SERIOUS?" kind of stuff in the public sphere as the kids who grew up on 4chan come of age and start having careers.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:39 PM on August 7, 2014 [14 favorites]


They should be careful though. Don't want Bret Easton Ellis to sue you for stealing his shtick.
posted by griphus at 12:40 PM on August 7, 2014 [4 favorites]


Do you not think that she's making her employer look bad with her views?

Firstly: no, because I recognize that the views of employees are not the same as those of the company that employs them.

Secondly: do you not realize how dangerous that rationale is? Would it be o.k. for a company to fire a gay employee in a conservative town because the local citizenry thought it made the company "look bad" to have an openly gay worker? Would it have been o.k. for Google to fire any employees who supported Occupy because to certain of Google's major clients that would "look bad"? I mean, if we're to make that legal grounds for dismissal there's really no need for "right to work" laws. You can fire anybody at anytime simply be invoking the possibility that something about that person annoys somebody.
posted by yoink at 12:43 PM on August 7, 2014 [6 favorites]


Ah, "unpopular". A classic weasel word when discussing the reaction of people to abhorrent concepts. You say that we should be discussing the idea on the merits, but the use of "unpopular" actually is meant to forestall that discussion - it dismisses opposition as being a function of popularity.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:43 PM on August 7, 2014 [4 favorites]


No, not at all--believe me, I find her ideas repugnant enough for the both of us. But the argument here is that her views hurt Google's business because they are unpopular. That's madness.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:46 PM on August 7, 2014


What's weasley about it anyway? If she were espousing noncontroversial ("popular") opinions, would this even be a thread?
posted by saulgoodman at 12:48 PM on August 7, 2014


Ah, "unpopular". A classic weasel word when discussing the reaction of people to abhorrent concepts. You say that we should be discussing the idea on the merits, but the use of "unpopular" actually is meant to forestall that discussion - it dismisses opposition as being a function of popularity.

Look, man, substitute for "unpopular" whatever synonym for "shit you don't like and don't agree with" you prefer and the rest of what I said still stands.
posted by echocollate at 12:49 PM on August 7, 2014


I thought the 'popular' description was a reply to my comment? Anyway, she clearly has serious issues going on, and not because she's saying unpopular things, its because she's saying some really wacky things. She seems unhinged. Its cause for concern.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:51 PM on August 7, 2014


No, the argument is that her views hurt Google because you have to wonder what is going on there when a prominent front facing employee is espousing things like "fuck democracy, we should turn over the US to Google!" Is she an outlier, or is that something that's thought about in the Googleplex?

No appeal to popularity needed.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:51 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


Secondly: do you not realize how dangerous that rationale is? Would it be o.k. for a company to fire a gay employee in a conservative town because the local citizenry thought it made the company "look bad" to have an openly gay worker?

It wouldn't be okay, but in most states, this is totally legal. It's legal in most states to fire anyone for any reason (except race or sex, nationally, other exceptions e.g. religion or veteran status may apply depending on the state).
posted by rtha at 12:53 PM on August 7, 2014 [3 favorites]


The bar for seeking help for an employee based on social media usage should be rather high if it exists at all. Arguing for the removal of human rights this society has (eventually) found to be extremely important from individuals based on metric-X for economic gain, for example would meet that bar for me.

If someone is arguing that we should go backwards on the whole every-person-has-the-right-to-self-determination thing that someone is either extremely vile or so, so far down the rabbit hole as to need help back up. That's a fairly basic tenet of what our society is (supposed to be in practice but still).
posted by Slackermagee at 12:54 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


What's weasley about it anyway? If she were espousing noncontroversial ("popular") opinions, would this even be a thread?

What's weasley about it is the subtext, that people are opposed because the idea is unpopular, and the dismissal of the idea that the arrow of causality might go the other way.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:59 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


From the Daily Beast link in the FPP:
How do you go from far-left socialist to far-right monarchist in three years?
This is how.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:59 PM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


It's legal in most states to fire anyone for any reason

Right, and typically here on Metafilter we deplore that fact, no?
posted by yoink at 1:00 PM on August 7, 2014 [3 favorites]


Yeah. I'm not arguing with you. A lot of times in threads people get all het up about reasons for terminating someone's employment if it seems unfair to them, and it's good to keep in mind that there is almost no fair to be found in this country, anywhere, when it comes to getting fired. That's it.
posted by rtha at 1:04 PM on August 7, 2014 [4 favorites]


Horseshoe theory: "Everything would be so much better if people would just come to their senses and put me in charge."
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:04 PM on August 7, 2014 [7 favorites]


To me, if someone is arguing that we should go backwards on the whole every-person-has-the-right-to-self-determination thing that someone is either extremely vile or so, so far down the rabbit hole as to need help back up. That's a fairly basic tenet of what our society is (supposed to be in practice but still).

If only there were a kind of camp where such persons could be sent for reeducation in right thinking.

And if they refuse reeducation, they're clearly vile, and the threat of termination as a lever to either force right thinking or punish wrong thinking is perfectly justified. Because values.

To me, this kind of thing is way more deleterious to a free and healthy society than some crank poo pooing democracy on Twitter.
posted by echocollate at 1:05 PM on August 7, 2014 [4 favorites]


She shouldn't be fired unless her work sucks. There are too few capable people in IT already and most of them have opinions somebody doesn't like. Google could always take her aside and ask her directly to cut it out if they don't like it. She wouldn't have to, but that way Google could make it clear they don't endorse her views, if that's the worry. If they do endorse them, then let that have the consequences it should have for Google.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:08 PM on August 7, 2014 [4 favorites]


Look, man, substitute for "unpopular" whatever synonym for "shit you don't like and don't agree with" you prefer and the rest of what I said still stands.

No, it doesn't, because your argument is that there hasn't been any discussion of the merits of her argument, while dismissing the idea that perhaps her ideas are unpopular because they have been discussed and found meritless. And just because someone new brings up the same bad penny doesn't mean that we get to have the same conversation over again. There's a reason why, if you bring up a tax protestor argument in court, the court will not only dismiss it, but hand you a shiny new contempt charge.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:13 PM on August 7, 2014


because your argument is that there hasn't been any discussion of the merits of her argument, while dismissing the idea that perhaps her ideas are unpopular because they have been discussed and found meritless

That is a complete misreading of echocollate's argument. Echocollate stipulates that her ideas are repugnant (as do I), but says simply that holding repugnant political ideas should not be grounds for dismissal. You seem to think otherwise, but I notice you resolutely refuse to address the question of who gets to decide which political beliefs merit firing. Would all of your personal political opinions be regarded as acceptably mainstream? Would you think it reasonable for your employer to fire you if they found out that you had embraced a political cause that was generally deprecated, either in the country at large, or in your local context or in the business community in which your employer operates?
posted by yoink at 1:21 PM on August 7, 2014 [6 favorites]


No, it doesn't, because your argument is that there hasn't been any discussion of the merits of her argument, while dismissing the idea that perhaps her ideas are unpopular because they have been discussed and found meritless. And just because someone new brings up the same bad penny doesn't mean that we get to have the same conversation over again. There's a reason why, if you bring up a tax protestor argument in court, the court will not only dismiss it, but hand you a shiny new contempt charge.

My dad suggested to me a while back that only people who pay property taxes should get the franchise. Maybe you can call up his employer and have him canned too. You know, to protect democracy.

Retaliating against someone for expressing ideas or opinions you dislike by suggesting they be fired or actively working to have them fired is shitty. Spin it however you like. There is no magic calculus you can perform to make it anything less than childish, vindictive behavior couched as justice.
posted by echocollate at 1:22 PM on August 7, 2014 [4 favorites]


She shouldn't be fired unless her work sucks. There are too few capable people in IT already and most of them have opinions somebody doesn't like.

1. Considering that she is in a front facing position, the persona she projects is, in fact, part of her work.

2. As we've discussed before, the "lack of talent" is a largely self-inflicted wound in the tech industry. So you'll pardon me if I find the claim less than persuasive in light of that.

3. Again, we have the dismissal of opposition by saying that I just "don't like" her views. You're right, I don't - but for good reason, and I'm getting tired of having to explain yet again Why SV-Style Technocracy Is A Bad Thing.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:24 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


fire her, fire the witch!
posted by ennui.bz at 1:24 PM on August 7, 2014


Google's also super sensitive to how employees present themselves with the bus protests etc. being front page news. They're issuing internal memos on behavior. Her outward-facing persona that she's tying directly to her employer is for sure going to lead to at least a very serious HR discussion. Much of what she's saying directly reflects badly on her employer and I'd be surprised if it hasn't come to their attention. She can have weird political views, but c'mon: "she submitted a Change.org petition that President Obama should step down and appoint Eric Schmidt as unelected CEO of America"
posted by naju at 1:30 PM on August 7, 2014 [5 favorites]


3. Again, we have the dismissal of opposition by saying that I just "don't like" her views. You're right, I don't - but for good reason, and I'm getting tired of having to explain yet again Why SV-Style Technocracy Is A Bad Thing.

Will you drop this fucking straw man? NOBODY says that you "just don't like" her views. EVERYONE agrees that there are Good Reasons to think her views are obnoxious. The point is that that still means that you're firing her because you "don't like" her political opinions. Again, if I'm a big Wall St fat cat I have very good reasons to dislike the political views of, say, a commited socialist. Are you saying that I should be allowed and, indeed, encouraged to dismiss all my employees who I catch in the act of supporting socialist politics? Or are you simply saying that everyone who happens to disagree with you, personally, should be fired from their jobs?
posted by yoink at 1:31 PM on August 7, 2014 [5 favorites]


I don't think she should be fired for her views, but I do think less of Google for being complicit in her political life and that (along with other non-related things) has encouraged me to seek out alternatives to Google services I used previously. And that's my right as a consumer.
posted by jess at 1:31 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


1. Considering that she is in a front facing position, the persona she projects is, in fact, part of her work.

She isn't actually in a front-facing position, is she? She's an engineer, not a PR, and apparently not an engineer whose portfolio includes public communication -- I've never seen any public statements from her as an engineer.

People make this "front-facing position" a lot, and for spokespeople, CEOs, etc., it seems to make sense. But now you are trying to apply it to a paradigmatic back-office employee, simply because that person has some public visibility. It's not really about the work position at all.
posted by grobstein at 1:32 PM on August 7, 2014 [8 favorites]


c'mon: "she submitted a Change.org petition that President Obama should step down and appoint Eric Schmidt as unelected CEO of America"

LOLtastic, yes, but as I recall—I haven't looked at Change.org in a while—not actually much more loltastic than many of the petitions submitted.

I'm getting tired of having to explain yet again Why SV-Style Technocracy Is A Bad Thing.

Darling, you must be nearly out of breath. And I don't think too many people disagree with you here, it's just that, well, I don't think Ms. Tunney is going to be leading the revolution any time soon or clapping any of us in leg irons. How could she, with all the time she spends on Twitter?
posted by octobersurprise at 1:43 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


If she is a 4chan active user, and if she has the right type of personality, and if she is insulated enough due to her status is society and distanced from the rest of society due to the particular social niche she exists in, then this is simply an example of the modern world we live in being given a voice and simply expressing the absorbed culture that she has existed in her entire life.

Those are all a lot of "if's."

Though part of me really hopes it's a long haul performance art project, and I have known quite a few cacophony society types who would love to have this kind of exposure of their particular brand of performance art, I have an odd feeling that we may never know, really.

I have yet to see her picking any direct fights (though I haven't looked), and mostly what I've seen highlighted are a whole lot of things that say to me "well crafted troll*."

*troll, in the abstract older use of the term, meaning to say outrageous things to get a reaction, with no real effort or necessary attachment to those ideas expressed.

Of course, you then have the later day version of an online 'troll', which really seems much more of an almost cargo cultist impression of the behavior, however with an actual attachment to the identified ideals (whether repugnant or otherwise).

I do hope we can learn, not from Justine Tunney, but from ourselves, and our reactions to her public and high profile (for now at least) expositions. Do we let our anger at the ideas she is expressing compromise our own ideals? Do we use her as an example of those ideals we find issue with? Can we use what she is putting out there are a spotlight on issues, divorced of her position or job, and simply say 'hey, this person is saying some really awful stuff?' and then use the reaction of those to which we point it out as a launching point to find those who might agree with those ideas, and enter into dialogues with people who may hold ideas different from our own to learn more about what causes those ideals to spread and flourish?

How might we address a 'friend' who you show these articles to and says "well, she has a point", and find yourself in that awkward situation where someone you thought you knew might actually view the world in a completely alternate way than you once thought? How do you react to them personally/socially? Do you need to react to them at all?

Some would chose to shun those who espouse these ideas. I would rather see more engagement, in any form, not shouting them down, but finding out why they believe what they do.

I would also love to ask Justine Tunney exactly "HOW" any of the ideas she talks about are supposed to work. Maybe through actual engagement, the flaws or massive gaping holes in the philosophy might be more readily exposed, and through the knowledge of those holes one can counter the ideas more effectively should one be faced with dealing with trying to deal with them in the future.

Maybe I'm naive in thinking that the only way progress really moves forward is through opposition. There has to be something pushing against you in order for you to push in any direction. The Civil Rights movement being one example. Universal Suffrage being another. Same-sex marriage being a third, just within the last century. There has to be a stated opposition to something in order for it to gain traction culturally. There are also plenty of counter examples, at least in the other direction, though to a greater degree, I believe there was pushback against deregulation, it just wasn't enough to keep it from happening. The same for tax subsidies for agriculture, or oil subsidies. What pushback there was simply was not in the right place or time to leverage any kind of effort against it (or was monitored by the FBI and there are plenty of interesting stories about whistleblowers in the nuclear energy sector).

Maybe she's doing it on purpose to push the ideas she espouses. Maybe she's doing it to highlight abhorent ideas that have traction in the culture she is surrounded by. Maybe she's having a laugh.

Either way, she's certainly got people talking. And sometimes that all you really need to do. Infamous still shares the root of fame. Egos are a funny thing.
posted by daq at 1:43 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


Troll.

Yawn.
posted by duffell at 1:46 PM on August 7, 2014


daq: I would also love to ask Justine Tunney exactly "HOW" any of the ideas she talks about are supposed to work.

I think I'd want to start with people and groups who have more sensible beliefs on paper and then work my way down to her particular brand of WTFery, but I think it would take many lifetimes, and she might take it personally if I visited the LaRouchebags and several religious cults before I got to her.

Though she'd probably be happy to still be ahead of the Scientologists!
posted by tonycpsu at 1:46 PM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


What a fucking asshole. I wish I could downvote her IRL.
posted by sfkiddo at 1:56 PM on August 7, 2014


And I wouldn't rule out the consideration that Google likes to be connected to people with influence, and Tunney might wind up with some lasting influence.

If she wins the grim power struggle against Mencius Moldbug, some descendant of Milton Friedman and whichever self-marketing douchebag was smart enough to notice which way the wind was blowing and jump on the Dark Enlightenment bandwagon in the last days of nominal placebo-button egalitarian democracy?
posted by acb at 1:56 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


Darling, you must be nearly out of breath. And I don't think too many people disagree with you here, it's just that, well, I don't think Ms. Tunney is going to be leading the revolution any time soon or clapping any of us in leg irons. How could she, with all the time she spends on Twitter?

The issue isn't her, but her employer. It's easy to say that she's just a troll, but considering that she has prominently displayed her organizational ties and Google has made no real effort to either distance or repudiate them makes me wonder if her viewpoint isn't common in the Googleplex. After all, it does dovetail with some of the ideas we've seen espoused in a semi-official fashion, like the argument for a beta test country that came up at I/O '13.

Basically, I'm wondering if she's just an outlier or the canary in the coal mine.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:57 PM on August 7, 2014


4chan's /pol/ is markedly distinct from the rest of 4chan. (It's also a pile of shit.)
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:13 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


She posted a petition on the official White House website to make her boss "the CEO of America". No corporation in the Fortune 500 will ever punish that kind of syncophancyloyalty. She probably has the brightest future of any woman in the company whose motto WAS "Don't Be Evil".
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:16 PM on August 7, 2014


Hrm. Ok, more research was needed, and now I'm fully in line with the belief that what she is doing is not the modern parlance of 'trolling,' but the open push against certain problematic elements that she directly experienced in working with Occupy and probably running in Anarchist circles as well. 15 years ago she would have been in southern Mexico, fighting with the Zapatista's, I have a feeling.

In the Buzzfeed link from the FFP, there is a response by Tunney that links to this TheNation.com article which features a detailed overview of Tunney's involvement with Occupy, and her direct on the ground interactions with people who have become "famous" for their involvement.

At least looking at that article, being part of the ground floor Occupy organizers, but not seeking the spotlight, and having to fight to retain control of things that she created, etc, etc.

A key element of that article is also in the following paragraph:
"Moyer posits that an “anarchistic loose structure” such as Occupy Wall Street’s general assembly can last in a movement for only about the first three months, while adrenaline is high. “Thereafter,” he writes, such a structure “tends to cause excessive inefficiency, participant burnout, and group domination by the most domineering and oppressive participants.” Starting in the first weeks of the occupation in New York, there was an effort to create a more functional structure called the Spokes Council, but an onslaught of opposition succeeded in thwarting it. Future attempts to try again met a similarly ugly fate."

Here is where you can obviously see someone like Justine Tunney, who was a true believer in making radical change, hence her involvement from 2011. How her technical expertise did give her a lot of tools to help build things, to help with organizing, to help with all the non-sexy things involved with any of these things.

Her stated beliefs in the article are "We shouldn’t just try to create an anarchist society that’s free. We should create a society that’s ten times better,” she says. That's not a troll. That's an optimist.

The trolling is a cultural affect. Use hyperbole to underscore the problems that you see.

Also, she apparently wrote a program to allow you to make prank calls in a celebrities voice, which sounds fucking funny.
posted by daq at 2:17 PM on August 7, 2014


Broken link there, daq
posted by tonycpsu at 2:18 PM on August 7, 2014


Fixed link.
posted by daq at 2:19 PM on August 7, 2014


So, she's basically the David Horowitz of anarchy.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:35 PM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


15 years ago she would have been in southern Mexico, fighting with the Zapatista's, I have a feeling.

I'm tumbling back further in time, imagining her fighting alongside Albanian Partisans. Hooray! We kicked out the Axis! Oh, wait, now this place is a totalitarian dictatorship. Hrm.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:35 PM on August 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I have no particular opinion on whether any of this should effect her livelihood, but I immediately read her as Modestly Proposing all or most of this.
posted by 2or3whiskeysodas at 2:36 PM on August 7, 2014




The thing is, you didn't see people in Swift's day advocating for genuine baby back ribs unironically. But you do see people honestly arguing that things would be better if we just turned the keys to society to the whiz kids.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:41 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


HIDE SHE'S ONTO YOU

Her tweets are protected. What'd she say?
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:43 PM on August 7, 2014


HIDE SHE'S ONTO YOU

NO PLACE FOR HIDEO
posted by grobstein at 2:47 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


I've speculated on occasion that Ann Coulter doesn't actually believe most of the crap she says and that it's all just an act to make herself buckets of money (highly doubtful, I know). Maybe Justine is trying the same schtick?
posted by JaredSeth at 2:48 PM on August 7, 2014


"I can believe some of the things she says are reprehensible while also believing her employment should be based on her job performance and whatever company policies are applicable."

It's Google. They almost certainly have a policy on social media use that she signed as a condition of her employment there. They may or may not decide to enforce it, but they may have both agreed that she could be terminated on those grounds before any of this happened.
posted by Selena777 at 2:49 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


To clarify, I don't at all think it would be right for her to be fired because of whatever bullshit she posted on her Twitter account. However, I am a little surprised that Google hasn't taken any disciplinary action against her, given that 1. in the USA, you can fire someone for essentially any reason, except within some very circumscribed areas, 2. Google is increasingly a lightning rod for anger about income inequality in the Bay Area, and 3. quite a bit of her political writing has directly mentioned her employer.

I would have thought some Google representative would have at least made the usual bland statement about her views and Google's policies by now. Of course, it could be they're just figuring that any attention they give her as a company would add oxygen to the fire.

I very much doubt any of this indicates that her positions are anywhere near mainstream at Google, though I also agree that a lot of this type of whackaloonery can end up being weirdly influential (cf Rand).
posted by en forme de poire at 2:54 PM on August 7, 2014


What'd she say?

She said "I will keel you. I WILL keel you. I will KEEL you. I will keel YOU. I will keel you ... etc etc ..." You know, that sort of thing.
posted by octobersurprise at 2:58 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


I've speculated on occasion that Ann Coulter doesn't actually believe most of the crap she says and that it's all just an act to make herself buckets of money (highly doubtful, I know). Maybe Justine is trying the same schtick?

One of the sad things about our political culture is that everyone loves crazy extremists, like Ann Coulter or (more dangerously) Sarah Palin.

The people on their side love them.

And the people on the other side love them, too -- love to hate them, love to point out their craziness, and love to hold them up as exemplars of those people -- implying that everyone on that side is a crazy extremist.

And that makes the people on their side rally behind them even more, for bravely standing up to all the hate.

Etc.

Everyone wins! Everyone gets more pageviews for their sensational stories; everyone gets scarier bogey-men to campaign against; everyone gets to feel more self-righteous, embattled, and aggrieved.

I can't see anything wrong with it.
posted by grobstein at 3:05 PM on August 7, 2014 [6 favorites]


Also, just of note, on her personal ask.fm site, there the following question and her answer:


So I'm considering moving over to neo-reactionary thought; but I'm curious as to why you've moved to these new views?
Who said I was a neoreactionary? I keep telling people I'm not, but no one believes me.
3 days ago


I also went to her website, and read some of her posts there, which are also quite interesting.

I think a lot of what the anti-Justine Tunney articles seem to be is almost a smeer campaign against someone that they don't understand, or more pointedly, someone who does not fit into other peoples mold of something, though I'm not sure what.

She also talks a lot about non-conformist lifestyles, which is why I am less and less inclined to think that any of her "provacative" statements are anything more than hyperbolic pokes at what she sees as weaknesses in non-anarchist philosophies. As limiting as that may be, at least she isn't a nihilist. (insert Big Lebowski quote here)
posted by daq at 3:08 PM on August 7, 2014


Ok, not going to post more of the stuff from her ask.fm profile, but she does directly answer a LOT of the questions people are asking about her, her time with Occupy, and her "turn" away from leftist politics.
posted by daq at 3:11 PM on August 7, 2014


(Once, on a car trip, I was seated with two college students who spontaneously volunteered their enthusiastic admiration for "Ann" -- Ann Coulter. I was too horrified to really figure it out, but they just liked her. They thought she was cool. Their personal views were right-wing but less extreme than hers, I think -- they didn't think genocide was necessarily a good idea, or whatever. But they admired her, they thought she was brave, they thought she stood for something and stood up for it. They thought she was a kind of hero for saying what she did. A big part of that must have been the feeling that she was standing despite a furious storm of opposition from leftish directions.)
posted by grobstein at 3:12 PM on August 7, 2014


I for one hope she and the doctrinaire would-be militants she fell out with just keep fighting each other until they run out of breath, leaving the world a safer and happier place.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 5:00 PM on August 7, 2014


Basically, I'm wondering if she's just an outlier or the canary in the coal mine.

Google engineer here (though I'm speaking as an individual, not on behalf of Google, etc, etc, so on and so forth). In my experience, the whole tech industry techno-libertarian thing is wildly overblown in the media. I've found that 90% of Googlers (or at least the ones I work with) are classic liberal Democrats. I don't work in Mountain View, though, so my experience may be atypical.
posted by Itaxpica at 5:14 PM on August 7, 2014 [5 favorites]


Hmm. If we're rating all-time trolling effectiveness, I'd say Amy Chua of "Tiger Mom" fame has to be near the top. Does this Justine person really top Chua's mastery?
posted by clawsoon at 5:20 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


Is she an outlier, or is that something that's thought about in the Googleplex?

Based on my personal knowledge of some people I know at Google, I can confidently say this sort of thing is definitely NOT seriously thought about at Google.

Well, arty least not until they get their hollow volcano base and orbital mind control lasers up and running. That's going to need some more people pulled from G+ first..
posted by happyroach at 5:22 PM on August 7, 2014


the whole tech industry techno-libertarian thing is wildly overblown in the media

So wait, you're telling me that Valleywag is often exaggerating?
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:23 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


So wait, you're telling me that Valleywag is often exaggerating?


All too often Valleywag writers seem to consist of liberal arts cool kids bitterly making fun of nerds.
posted by gyc at 5:31 PM on August 7, 2014 [4 favorites]


Getting "a furious storm of opposition from leftish directions" is a vital part of building a career in the Punditocracy, and Ann Coulter is a pioneer in that direction. Of course, getting a furious storm of opposition from rightish directions is a career killer.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:36 PM on August 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


Hillary
posted by grobstein at 6:38 PM on August 7, 2014


Someone with an OWS handle saying something inane?

Shocked.

I am shocked.
posted by jpe at 7:24 PM on August 7, 2014


So I was unaware of the so-called 'dark enlightment' until this thread, and I found this writeup on RationalWiki highly amusing.

Neoreactionaries are the latest in a long line of intellectuals who somehow think that their chosen authoritarian thugs wouldn't put them up against the wall. Possibly using sheer volume of words as a bulletproof shield.
The movement is largely insignificant and mostly an object of curiosity (one must hope it remains this way), though it has attracted some racists of the pseudo-intellectual variety.

posted by Existential Dread at 7:42 PM on August 7, 2014 [4 favorites]


Just imagine the field day valleywag will have if she eventually is fired: "Google fires OWS activist for 'controversial' political writing, solidifies control over employees' personal life. Don't forget to get your opinions approved by your corporate masters first, techies!" The thing practically writes itself.
posted by what of it at 8:28 PM on August 7, 2014


Reading this thread, I thought "How many hundreds of thousands of followers does this woman have? Or millions? Must be a lot if so many people are talking about her."

So I went and looked. Ms. Tunney has 2,500 followers. That's twenty-five hundred followers, which is not all that many. I'm guessing there are plenty of Mefi-ites active on Twitter who have more, and yet are not the subject of extensive online coverage and discussion. So how did she manage to grab the spotlight in the first place? Sheer offensiveness? Blatant contrarianism? I guess I'd like to know the secret ingredient to her mega-effective trolling formula.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 2:26 AM on August 8, 2014 [1 favorite]


Is it posible for weev to be the top commenter on that Quora thread and this NOT to be some kind of troll?
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 2:32 AM on August 8, 2014


I wish the phrase "dark enlightenment" would go away. We already have a word for people whose sociopolitical compass points to real and imagined pasts. They're called reactionaries. No spiffy neologisms required.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 5:22 AM on August 8, 2014 [1 favorite]


But it sounds so cool and comix-y!
posted by GrammarMoses at 5:50 AM on August 8, 2014 [1 favorite]


I wish the phrase "dark enlightenment" would go away.

OTOH, every time I see it I read it as "dork enlightenment" and it reminds me who we're dealing with.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:00 AM on August 8, 2014 [9 favorites]


Neoreactionaries present a distinct form of reactionary politics - the term "neoreactionary" is necessary to identify that. The fact that they themselves use the phrase "dark enlightenment" isn't really up for our debate, either.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:09 AM on August 8, 2014


There is a not-small group of people who believe that if they're making everyone mad, they must be doing something right. When I feel dumb enough to confront them I like to ask why they don't just shut up, throw bricks through everyone's windshield, and continue being right.
posted by Legomancer at 6:38 AM on August 8, 2014


And I wouldn't rule out the consideration that Google likes to be connected to people with influence, and Tunney might wind up with some lasting influence.

That's probably the dumbest thing I've ever read.
posted by atrazine at 6:57 AM on August 8, 2014 [3 favorites]


I find Justine Tunney much more palatable when I pretend her tweets are intercepted love letters to Ignatius J. Reilly.
posted by valkane at 7:00 AM on August 8, 2014 [5 favorites]


Neoreactionaries present a distinct form of reactionary politics - the term "neoreactionary" is necessary to identify that.

Anti-feminist monarchists are somehow distinct from other reactionaries? I really don't see how even the "neo" is necessary, unless it's shorthand for "that flavor of internet reactionary you spend entirely too much time arguing with before realizing you could have spent that time doing something worthwhile like bleaching the grout in your bathroom."

They can call themselves what they please. "Dork enlightenment" is now forever burned on my brain.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:27 AM on August 8, 2014


And I wouldn't rule out the consideration that Google likes to be connected to people with influence, and Tunney might wind up with some lasting influence.

That's probably the dumbest thing I've ever read.


More reading practice. Hth. You'll find it opens up a world of imagination and knowledge.
posted by grobstein at 8:00 AM on August 8, 2014


So how did she manage to grab the spotlight in the first place?

Is this a serious question? Her media presence is almost entirely due to her registering OccupyWallSt.org early and maintaining sole control of it during the Occupy protests. For a while it was the most visible Internet face of the protests and their best means of announcing events, and Tunney courted controversy by insisting on her personal authority to decide what parts of the protests the website would announce or cover and what parts it wouldn't. The opportunism and narcissism were quickly apparent then, but the extent of her unprincipledness, the way the political ideology served the drama-seeking, obviously didn't become clear until later. Her coattail ride to personal Internet fame is one of many case studies in how not to do organizing that Occupy provided.
posted by RogerB at 8:44 AM on August 8, 2014 [4 favorites]


liberal arts cool kids

Whoa--wait a minute, wait a minute here. I was with you until you dropped this little bit here. In no universe I've ever known were liberal arts kids the "cool kids"! This part reads like a complete non sequitur to me. The jocks and rich kids were the cool kids.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:15 AM on August 8, 2014


hmm yes let's keep analyzing the world on the level of tenth graders and John Hughes, that sounds like a recipe for good discussions online
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:43 AM on August 8, 2014 [1 favorite]


Sorry. That bit just threw me so I thought I'd make a lighthearted remark about it. Didn't mean to drag the discourse down to 10th grade level (and to be fair, the original comment started it).
posted by saulgoodman at 9:49 AM on August 8, 2014


My comment applies to that comment, too.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:53 AM on August 8, 2014


RogerB, I get that she pulled some sort of shenanigans with regard to Occupy Wall St.'s internet presence, but that's been a while. Given that 2,500 Twitter followers isn't much at all in the way of Internet fame, it doesn't seem like she was able to capitalize on her previous actions all that effectively in terms of turning previous attention into a large personal following. And she seems to have been identified correctly as a troll by a significant number of people. So I'm still left wondering, why is anyone paying attention to this woman now?
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 10:50 AM on August 8, 2014




« Older India's data portal   |   Two Danish visitors in car-centric Canada Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments