Meta lawyer Mark Lemley quits AI case citing Zuckerberg 'descent'
news.bloomberglaw.com
news.bloomberglaw.com
Lawyers don’t bail for vague reasons like this in my experience
This sounds like The Trang calling for a special termination on Col. Kurtz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMBF3kXHoZM&t=6s
"insane sir, obviously insane..."
This reminds me of a passage from PG’s recent essay on Wokeism:
“There's a certain kind of person who's attracted to a shallow, exacting kind of moral purity, and who demonstrates his purity by attacking anyone who breaks the rules.”
I’m not a fan of Zuckerberg, but a Neo-Nazi?
Should we all just roll over and say "this is fine" ?
PGs own "performative aspect" is writing that blog, the whole thing where people on the right invented "virtue signaling" is way to show off to each other.
It's a silly concept, but it's the age old thing of rebounding something people should do as something they shouldn't.
I don't think this is a right-wing thing particularly?
It’s incredible to compare the statements made by prominent figures (including tech CEOs) in the aftermath of Jan 6th and what you hear them say today. All about a man who hasn’t really changed in any meaningful way or expressed any remorse for actions considered unforgivable four years ago. The reasons why are pretty obvious, I’m no rube, I get that we’re all self-motivated at the end of the day. But at least own it rather than complain about the people who point out the hypocrisy.
If they just quit, instead of making a giant public article calling their prior client a Neo Nazi, I doubt the PG quote would apply.
Especially since, of all people, an attorney doing this is just ridiculous.
“Gambling? In my establishment? That’s impossible!”
And wrt to the neo-Nazi accusation, you know what they say: what do they call nine people sitting at a table with a Nazi? Ten Nazis.
A bit more nuanced than that, and I think you're technically wrong. Writing a serious piece to an audience that is already there to seek out opinions from that individual known to be opinionated, is not the same as shoving opinions in people's faces when they least expect it, and/or in a sneaky off-topic way.
> And wrt to the neo-Nazi accusation, you know what they say: what do they call nine people sitting at a table with a Nazi? Ten Nazis.
Another great way to make 10 nazis out of 9 is to water down the definition of the word and to apply it judiciously to everyone who disagrees with you or is even simply willing to hear certain opinions that you strongly disagree with (whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant, the nazi in that situation is you).
I certainly didn't seek out his opinion on culture war topics. The actual nuanced take would be: A business writer with no political knowledge decides to weigh in on politics in a clearly performative way.
> whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant, the nazi in that situation is you
Ther irony hurts, you claim calling others a Nazi for associating and supporting Nazis is wrong, but I'm also actually the Nazi for saying it? What happened to free speech?
Um, no. Wokeism is definitely within his wheelhouse as a VC, as it plays a big role in corporate policies, and macro market conditions, even in tech.
> associating and supporting Nazis is wrong
That wasn't your original quote, you mentioned seating positions. Unless you just mistakenly left out the part about it being in a prison I don't see how that original statement makes sense.
How is it performative when there is actually an action behind it?
Virtue signaling is probably more accurate, as a sibling comment noted.
The actual usage is doing something to ‘appear virtuous’. Usually in the context of actual actions being non-congruent with the actual underlying virtue. Otherwise the person is just a (perhaps in a small degree) a saint.
Do you think this Lawyer is a saint?
If they do literally nothing, or the opposite of what they are doing then it is purely performative. It doesn’t have to be purely performative though.
For example, if a city spends a lot of time and effort showing how they are doing recycling and end up putting it into a landfill without further processing? That is purely performative virtue signaling.
If they sort it, and sell it to someone (at a loss), but that company ends up producing more waste/emissions while doing the processing, then it’s virtue signaling, it is at least not purely performative virtue signaling. They are putting some money where their mouth is.
Either way, it doesn’t actually solve any real underlying problems though (probably). And frankly, what are the odds the attorney actually just got fired?
Yes, it is, at least in the way I see it used the majority of the time.
All of your examples prove my point: the person calling recycling “virtue signaling” is admitting that the idea of recycling is virtuous.
When people say this attorney is virtue signaling, they’re admitting that him firing FB as a client for being neo-Nazis is virtuous.
> what are the odds the attorney actually just got fired?
Low.
So going on and on about the idea can often cause more harm than good.
And almost no one goes on a loud rant when the split was amicable/voluntary.
This lawyer associated much more closely with Zuckerberg than any of us here. He might thus have a better idea of what's going on in Zuckerberg's head than we do. What if he's just right? Would you still be complaining about "wokeism"?
>What if he's just right?
He's not.
I'd sarcastically ask "which one is it?", but actually neither of those is true. Nazis tend to let you know who they are eventually, if you hang around long enough. It's very likely that if Mark does harbor neo-Nazi tendencies, his close associates would be well aware. So it's just a question of how much we trust this lawyer's judgment.
The worst regimes went hand in hand with the press, and social media companies rolling over like this is a similar sign.
While he may not believe this stuff (I'm not sure he believes anything he's probably so detached from reality at this point) he sure is signaling he will do what they want.
As if that term didn't cover alt right in general.
If I knew my lawyer was so affected by political or religious association that they would drop me in the middle of a case if my views simply disagreed with theirs - I would immediately fire them.
People really need to learn to separate their Xitter personality from their professional life. All that said, this reads more like "lawyer gets fired, attempts to re-phrase as 'I fired my client.'"
Zucks lawyer signed up to defend a specific man, the kind of man who would not do neo-nazi shit, so when that changes so too does the deal, no?
If you're a lawyer and you can't consciously go to bat for over 50% of the country because you genuinely think they are "neo-nazis" - yeah, don't be a lawyer. But do see a therapist, because that's probably a condition in the DSM.
We can of course debate about the precise definition of neo-Nazi. And sure, maybe this attorney should have used all the words I used above instead, but I don’t think it’s necessarily too far off to use “neo-Nazi” as a shortcut.
business leaders often meet with and maintain relationships across the political spectrum for pragmatic reasons rather than ideological alignment. While this doesn't excuse enabling harmful rhetoric, it suggests we should distinguish between *strategic engagement* and genuine ideological support. The attorney's characterization seems to skip past this nuance.
There is clear evidence of at least one of those things. Like it or not, as I said in my original post, “neo-Nazi” is close enough, I think.
Any business leader considering “strategic engagement” with the incoming administration is clearly morally bankrupt and deserves loud and public scorn, whether or not they ideologically support it.