this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
1742 points (96.5% liked)
Linus Tech Tips
3799 readers
1 users here now
~~⚠️ De-clickbait-ify the youtube titles or your post will be removed!~~
~~Floatplane titles are perfectly fine.~~
~~LTT/LMG community. Brought to you by ******... Actually, no, not this time. This time it's brought to you by Lemmy, the open communities and free and open source software!~~
~~If you post videos from Youtube/LTT, please please un-clickbait the titles. (You can use the title from https://nitter.net/LTTtranslator/ but it doesn't seem to have been updated in quite some while...)~~
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There was Naomi Wu (still don't know 100% if we can trust her on that), and now there's Madison. So, if this is true, you can expect more people to speak up in the next days/weeks. If there are many creeps (Naomi Wu was directly incriminating Linus, Madison is apparently incriminating another manager), the facts will eventually come out. Let's just wait to see who speaks next. Let's not forget the "Innocent until proven guilty" part of the law. No matter how revolted I am, I don't want to start witch-hunting anyone, just on allegations.
This is the thing. LMG already lost a WHOLE LOT of value this week. Tim "Big bald mouth" Holowachuk already did a whole lot of damage with his undeserved dissing, was the straw that broke the camel's back and led Steve to respond to the dissing with months of meticulously noted facts, and that would have already been an "Oof" on itself. Without anything else. But then Linus "The Magnanimous" Sebastian decided to pitch in, and proudly dismiss most of the valid, rational criticism, while throwing, once more, some poor entrepreneurs who tried to have him feature their product under the bus, after having illegally sold their best performing product. That was even a bigger "Oof". At that point, Linus was already exposing himself as a liar, who acts in bad faith (nobody would seriously think this would coincidentally be the very first time he does such a thing!?) for business and clout. And then, to drive the nail fully in his coffin, Madison remarked this was the perfect opportunity for her to speak up, and be heard. I think she speaks the truth. Internet has taught me that anyone can be a liar (right, Linus?) and do anything for their own profit or clout, so I would really like to get confirmations on Madison's allegations; but I still tend to believe her more than not. It sounds legit.
That really was a nice and good thing to do. Good lesson.
I don't follow Naomi Wu, so I don't know her history. Therefore I cannot answer on the second part. But what I can say is: I don't trust anyone who is part of an abusive, dysfunctional social system literally rendering people insane. The over sexualization of random content has to stop. It's one thing to find NSFW material if you're searching for it, it's another to be constantly spammed with such content.
When I get uncomfortable, I take a step back, I think, analyze, and find out what I can change so I don't get in such a situation again. I don't expect others to magically solve the problem for me. But being entitled comes with the job of "influencer", I presume.
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Linus is a fucking creep. He demonstrably lied about so much, this week alone. However, Linus being at fault here doesn't exonerate Naomi then either. Two toxic people still produce a toxic result, they don't cancel each other out, it's not arithmetic.
Clearly, you've not met insane people. I have been around traumatized people, and they were absolutely convinced of me having intentions I never, ever had. Our society is raising lots of men to be creeps, and lots of women to be paranoid, so it doesn't take much for shit to go sideways.
Oh, no. Just no.
First off: I named Naomi because she did, in fact, call Linus out, and it might also be true. Me not blindly trusting her (like you apparently do) doesn't mean I think she's lying either. I want proof, not drama. And so far, she only provided the latter.
Second, what shade? Me not unconditionally believing everything Naomi Wu says, or said, isn't "throwing shade"...
Third, and that's the reason for the "oh no, just no" above: Not only I did not throw shade (and saying it won't make it true), but leave victims of abuse out of this. You fucking don't get to use them for being "right" in an online argument. Seriously, that is disgusting. You frankly should be ashamed of yourself.
Ad hominem. Thanks for directly admitting you don't actually have arguments.
And a few notes:
Exonerate her for witch hunting anyone out of her own paranoia. Linus being toxic elsewhere doesn't suddenly make logic irrelevant. Proof or gtfo. Don't expect others to solve your problems. Especially the ones you needlessly created, out of greed.
Extremist much? So there are only two ways to dress up: a Burka, or showing your mound? Who taught you that, the supreme mullah of Iran?
It's actually important to realize our society is insanely frustrating people sexually (but I'm guessing you know, given your ad hominem of choice), and that in those conditions, walking around people you don't know half naked when you look any good, is absolutely irresponsible, and entirely disrespectful.
I really hope you get better. Sorry about what you had to go through...
I've not followed much recently and have no idea who Naomi is or what the situation is so this conversation has been fascinating, I feel like the more it's gone on the less I understand.
So your argument is that she is attractive and walks around half naked which causes sexual frustration in men therefore she has no right to feel uncomfortable when people (i.e. Linus) create situations that would be unacceptable with a more modestly dressed woman?
I can't say I agree with this reasoning but I would like to understand what you're saying, I assume you saying her vulva was excused is hyperbolic but could you explain in your view where the line is with dress, what sort of outfits are we taking about for women and men - if you're wearing shorts what sort of level of sexual comments would I be allowed to make which I wouldn't were you wearing trousers?
That's simplifying. My argument is that she is causing harm to frustrated people (assuming that only men are attracted to women is factually wrong, assuming that only men are having difficulties getting their intimate needs fulfilled is equally wrong), and that she is doing so solely for the advantages it procures with regard to her influence.
She has every right to feel uncomfortable. It's not about that, and it has never been. She has no right to aim at harming others for her feelings.
What we know for sure is that Linus asked her to come to his hotel in the late evening. Nothing else has ever been proven. From going to his room, to his intents of sexual assault, it is all pure speculation. I know mobs adore harming others based on speculation alone; but it is something we ought to get away from, if we ever want to call ourselves civilized.
I would be the first to want to put Linus's ass in prison if we can get any proof that he committed, facilitated, and/or ignored sexual misconduct. Against anyone, not just women, not just (semi) public figures. But basing yourself on allegations only is comparable to SWATting: you're causing harm, from assumptions. Irremediable actions (like loss of life, or trauma) should never be triggered from assumptions. We need actual, irrefutable facts. With, you know, chat logs, since Naomi has them.
Yes, absolutely. Basically, since you never know what triggers the random people around you in public spaces (and for online material, what triggers literally anyone), most "usual" attire is okay. As long as it does not highlight any part of your body that is associated with a physiological human need being denied to a large part of the population (men and women alike, that's not an "incel" thing, no matter how much some people here want to say it), anything works. This is about "best effort", and mutual respect. It also depends on context. It is totally acceptable to wear tight pants at the gym, because no one is forcing anyone to go to the gym. You can always find gyms that are "women only" or "men only", etc. However, in the public space, such as a street, wearing tight pants has a totally different meaning. It's always a question of context, always a question of introspection, and always a question of "am I doing this out of spite because of all the problems society is causing me, or is this this actually acceptable, considering the other problems people have to deal with?".
And yes, that last question is something almost no-one ever asks themselves. That's why we're literally currently devolving. It's a race to who is going to trigger the "other side" the hardest. It's easy for algorithms to manage, so that's what surfaced over the last decades, but it's absolutely unhealthy. And it won't end well.
| part of the law.
We're not in a court of law here. Even then, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and that only applies to criminal matters. With civil matters the standard is "the preponderance of evidence."
Outside of court proceedings, the standard is completely arbitrary and has been since, well, forever.
There's an entire world, outside of the U.S...
Yes but the same is true in all of it, innocent until proven guilty is a legal thing not a social thing because it rests on the fact that the case is being tried - if I called you a smelly snail then you went to your mom and said I called you a smelly snail you wouldn't expect her to say 'well we have to act like he didn't until it's been tried in a court of law...'
Thanks for making me laugh :) (I didn't laugh at you, the snail example was pretty funny).
Yes, the innocent until proven guilty is a matter of legal affairs.
Yes, the public opinion isn't bound to such limitations. But that is only because the public opinion isn't supposed to have executive power.
Arguably, the Internet changed that. The public opinion now does have at least some executive power: before the internet, it was practically impossible for anyone to organize a coherent retaliation towards any entity; and that responsibility was entirely left to the official, governmental executive power.
Since social media enabled emergent social organization, coherent retaliation is absolutely possible, and is something the American "left" has been doing for a decade with the concept of "cancelling" people.
Now, as I posted elsewhere, the algorithms in place online are shaping the discourse, and aren't shaping it in a way that aims at social improvement, but at engagement maximization. Which, you know, anger and hate are the fastest route to.
The consequence of this is that the American "right" has duly noted what the "left" has been doing, learned from their concept, learned the tools, and is now apparently preparing their own version of "cancelling" people, which presumably involves the second amendment.
It is probably too late to remind everyone that "innocent until proven guilty" shall apply to any and all parties with executive power, however emergent; but I still think it's an important fact to highlight.
In case we can salvage anything from what our ancestors gave their blood and sweat for, and learn how to resolve conflict instead of giving in, having a major crisis; only after which we will begin pondering what needs to be done.
I do think the Naomi Wu thing was mostly a misunderstanding taken to extremes due to fanbases toxicity (doubt she would've outright said Linus wanted her to suck his dick if the stans hadn't started harassing her, she basically jumped to all out offensiveness out of spite). This, however? Even if she was also being toxic in the workplace, it just means management had been so horrible that toxic behaviors developed with ease and would just spin out of control. This all sounds like they could just not adapt to becoming more corporate oriented fast enough, and the fact that Linus just recently stepped down as CEO is clear proof of this. He should've done that years ago.
Very possibly, I also take issues with creators that cheat on content quality using whatever loophole they find (eh Linus?), that's my reason for not liking her.