One thing to remember: it's only one side of the story from somebody who had/has serious financial interest depending on the outcome of the scandal. It kind of worries me how most comments take the allegations for granted.
Sure, maybe she believes her book will earn her more. But she'd need to write the #1 or 2 non-fiction book of the year to get there.
It is reasonable to anticipate Pao is not giving up get career, and expects to make more than 2M from it. The spin about her during this debate has made her look pretty bad.
So... yeah. She could easily be motivated by money, in terms of investing in her long term earning potential.
If your net worth is 200k and you refuse the payout, that says much more than if you are worth 20m
If your training and professional career are all aimed at a business in which personal relationships are key, pointing out that those in it, and the relationships they promote, are toxic, isn't especially conducive to future professional development (unless you manage to overturn the entire profession -- a long shot). Pao is taking major risks here.
And I'm not particularly aware of students matriculating into English degree programs hoping to get rich writing novels and/or autobiographical accounts in the same way one hears of engineering, finance, or law degrees.
Your argument is specious.
No wonder people rightfully remind there's another side.
I think it's also important to remember this pattern. It's been coming up a lot in recent years.
Not according to the judge.
You may say they were rightful, and many people are discussing it.
But at the same time you have to understand that a person trained and appointed to determine if the reasons are rightful, said they are not.
That's were the story started to have two sides.
Short of having an audio or video tape, a couple witnesses, or written documents of propositions or threats to ruin her career at KP, she was in a he said she said scenario.
It would be akin to having to acquit someone you feel is quite because the state failed to make their case or because the state made their case but screwed up something on a technicality and now you cannot consider that single piece of evidence in deciding which side prevails.
In courts there is proof, evidence and admissible evidence. At the end of the day only the latter matters.
I would note that this aspect is a construct of common law. In civil law all evidence is admissible, and the facts that would cause evidence to be inadmissible in common law would simply be additional context in civil law.
When proving the theory of relativity the universe will not suddenly decide to behave differently in order for you to have a harder time proving it. It's an absolute opposite in terms of the legal system.
So when you're trying to operate in an environment that is highly unstable and at times contradictory (killing a person is bad, killing a person who is trying to kill you is ok, killing a person who you thought was trying to kill you but actually wanted to talk is bad, what if any of the parties are lying as well?), then introducing Russell's teapot might just be as appropriate as following the proven path.
As the proof itself might be so weak that introducing something unproven might just be as plausible.
Dawkin's is not a great argument, though. Reasoning about metaphysics is nothing like establishing facts in a lab or guilt in a courtroom.
Jury.