This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Sure, it happens all the time, but rarely enough, that in most cases when someone gets fired, people don't presume wrongful termination. This case is even more specific, when the company owner, and 2 journalists unaffiliated with the company caught the guy with his hand in the cookie jar, and the only argument for wrongful termination is "there is no evidence those weren't his cookies".
I'm not presuming wrongful termination, I have no idea what's happening. "He did something bad" doesn't mean "he covered up fraud". And elon firing him because maybe he did something bad I can't tell is, in a broad sense, can be a reasonable move for an executive to make to be more certain about the process even if he did nothing wrong! "Elon wrongfully fired innocent man because corrupt poopy head" is not reasonable to conclude. But OP's claim that "[baker] began slow walking and obfuscating access to the documents Elon wanted the journalist to have" is not justified either, seeing as elon hasn't even claimed that!
Facially, having the twitter deputy GC involved in reviewing documents is fine. While he has a conflict of interest ... a ton of people at twitter who worked in comms or legal have the same conflict of interest, given the documents elon is posting are attempts to make them look bad, so that's not as surprising as it sounds.
Also, musk has made a decent number of obviously and comically bad decisions in relation to twitter - the bluecheck change, as implemented (nobody was checking if @nintendoamericaUSA buying verified for 8/mo was actually nintendo) , was obviously going to lead to impersonation, seeing as the entire original purpose of verified was to prevent impersonation. A twitter team wrote a document explicitly flagging that risk and the product got launched anyway! This isn't to argue twitter will fail, doubtful, or that musk won't make good decisions in the future, just that there isn't a prior of "careful and measured executive who doesn't make massive misfires".
You are arguing for it in the next paragraph, where you claim it's fine he was involved in a process he was fired for getting himself involved in, though.
That paragraph says he was just reviewing documents for the right reasons, and didn't hide any documents for COI or otherwise bad reasons, then ... he didn't do anything wrong, obviously. And I specify later that, even then, in a general sense, maybe elon was right to fire him! But maybe he did hide documents, elon hinted at that but didn't really say it, idk!
But he was fired for reviewing the documents, if the reasons were right, than his termination was wrongful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link