Earlier quoted context omitted.
That NYT article says: In settling on terms favorable to two of the men, Google protected its own interests. The company avoided messy and costly legal fights, and kept them from working for rivals as part of the separation agreements. Real life isn't a melodrama. I suspect there's plenty of nuance here.
You claimed: > If someone walks away with 8-digit sums, there were contracts involved The NYT article is pretty unequivocal that that is false, even if you want to pull out quotes talking about different issues. > paying them millions of dollars as they departed, even though it had no legal obligation to do so. They had no legal obligation to pay the severance. If you want to discuss a different reason to pay $90 mil…
Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
321–326 of 326 posts
Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
historical comparisons with clearly demarcated "bad" sides are pretty much just veiled bad faith arguments.
I would say that the bad argument was arguing that someone deserved to be fired because they were "divisive" and "dogmatic" on twitter. I was only trying to point out the parallels in bad argumentation between now and then.
Top level comment said, paraphrased, "it's a shame people dismiss her as a Twitter personality when she has a highly respected body of work in the field."
My reply was to press that, in my view, she's not being dismissed as "just a Twitter personality", but rather her Twitter behavior is worthy of examination in itself.
Finally, I've never read civil rights era letters to the editor, so I'm not referencing or borrowing any specific rhetoric from there. I'm using bog standard English language words to describe the arguments and advocacies that I am seeing in the present.
Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem isn't the specific comparison you're using. The problem is that you're attempting to cut off discussion rather than engage in it.
We're actually having an extensive discussion in the comments. Welcome! Don't really know how else to respond to vague accusations of engaging in a "divisive and dogmatic strain of diversity advocacy."
So let me make some arguments for you to consider.
-To declare that certain people (on the basis of their minority status) have inherently privileged knowledge of boundary-less, undefined, fuzzy social dynamics is a divisive assertion. It seeks to divide authority along identity lines.
-To advocate that certain people (on the basis of their minority status) should actively be given privileged decision-making status over collective processes or structures is a divisive and dogmatic advocacy. It seeks to divide power along identity lines.
-To denounce as ethically compromised the people who disagree with you on complex open topics, such as the above two notions, is outright dogmatic. To assume one's perspective is so undeniably true that discussion can only be aggression is a dogmatic position.
I contend that all three of these dynamics are rampant in the preferred methods and among the prominent leadership of the currently en vogue Racial Justice and DEI movements (lots of crossover).
To tie it back to the start: I've observed Timnit engaging in these things, fanning these flames and boosting others who do so too.
But note that my comment implies there are other ways to advocate for diversity and justice. The broad BLM/Kendi/DiAngelo/Gebru style is not the only form and theory of diversity advocacy.
A simple alternative, for example, would be to call attention to the same problems without 1) preemptively attacking other people based on their own immutable identity characteristics, and 2) trying to draw new lines and hierarchies of privileged voice and power.
Lots of people (I suspect the majority of the sympathetic) practice this alternative. However, the louder, Timnit-aligned strain seems to enjoying social privilege in this area at this moment. How ironic.
Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. It was an aquihire. Usually there's some performance secondary payout strings attached. 2. It doesn't matter what their deal was. It matters what public perception is. I'm talking entirely about public perception. Regardless of what their deal was, Google has to send a signal that _impacts future deals_. If the general developer public thinks that Android was acquired for too little, then we will all be reluctant…
> Google needs to make more Android-like deals in the future. I think you'd be hardpressed to find a founder that wouldn't sell to Google for what they consider the right price if he didn't get $90M. Do you think any football players don't want to play for the Patriots, because Aaron Hernandez wasn't supported by them? People get that all bets are off with criminally poor behavior.
Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
How the hell is firing someone who offered an ultimatum not a justifiable reason for accepting said resignation? By definition the default position was "leave the company"
Yes, they fired her after requiring her to retract her approved paper criticizing some of Google's practices. I agree with you that it was a "firing", we can debate over whether it was justified, but it wasn't a resignation.
Isn't that technically resigning if those things aren't given to her?
Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it "disrespects the veterans" in some people's eyes. Astonishing, isn't it, that the same people who found issue with Kaepernick's protest probably have never heard the name "Nate Boyer"[1] before-who is both a veteran of the armed forces, and a veteran of the NFL. It's never good enough. [1] https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/05/nfl-49ers-colin-kaepernick-...
I’m pretty sure “disrespects the flag” is little more than a strawman to attack instead of them having to discuss the actual point trying to be made.