4 ms·

MIT is not one uniform entity.

by dom2 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago
Then it should have made several conflicting announcements at the time, but I just saw one.
- hueving 10y ago
  Because everyone at MIT has authority to make press releases. Similar to how everyone in the US is allowed to use the Whitehouse press secretary to announce things.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Because everyone at MIT has authority to make press releases. Well, if they don't, that's still a SINGLE organization to my eyes. Just because some people there might disagreed at the time, it doesn't absolve the organization.
    - hueving 10y ago
      Did you even read the context of the comment you originally replied to? It refers to people, not an organization. >Aren't these the people that failed to defend Aaron Swartz? So no, these aren't the same people. However, it is the same parent organization, but I don't think anyone is disputing that even though that's the strawman you are attacking.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >Did you even read the context of the comment you originally replied to? It refers to people, not an organization. Organizations consist of people. There is some more stuff beyond that -- just some legal documents, buildings, and other assets, but the thing that actually has the agency to drive an organization is people. >So no, these aren't the same people. However, it is the same parent organization, but I don't think anyone is disputing that even though that's the strawman you are attacking. They are the same people that worked there and didn't protest publicly about the actions of the organization and/or didn't resign.
        hueving 10y ago
        >They are the same people that worked there and didn't protest publicly about the actions of the organization and/or didn't resign. So nobody has left or joined MIT since the Aaron Schwartz case? Even ignoring that detail, I have a lot more respect for people that change an organization from within rather than quit immediately anytime something disagreeable happens. If everyone operated the way you are suggesting, we would essentially have institutions that would never change because nobody with different viewpoints could join.
- kzrdude 10y ago
  Your logical leap there is not sound.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Not much of a leap. At some point you either take a stand, even if it's against the official stance of the organization you work with, or you are branded with its decisions. "I was just following orders" and/or "I disagreed, but I was in the minority" is not an excuse.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > "I was just following orders" and/or "I disagreed, but I was in the minority" is not an excuse. Yes is is, both are valid.
williamle8300 10y ago
Would you say it's an "autonomous collective?"
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

MIT is not one uniform entity.

by dom2 10y ago

MIT is not one uniform entity.

coldtea 10y ago

Then it should have made several conflicting announcements at the time, but I just saw one.

hueving 10y ago
Because everyone at MIT has authority to make press releases. Similar to how everyone in the US is allowed to use the Whitehouse press secretary to announce things.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Because everyone at MIT has authority to make press releases. Well, if they don't, that's still a SINGLE organization to my eyes. Just because some people there might disagreed at the time, it doesn't absolve the organization.
  - hueving 10y ago
    Did you even read the context of the comment you originally replied to? It refers to people, not an organization. >Aren't these the people that failed to defend Aaron Swartz? So no, these aren't the same people. However, it is the same parent organization, but I don't think anyone is disputing that even though that's the strawman you are attacking.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >Did you even read the context of the comment you originally replied to? It refers to people, not an organization. Organizations consist of people. There is some more stuff beyond that -- just some legal documents, buildings, and other assets, but the thing that actually has the agency to drive an organization is people. >So no, these aren't the same people. However, it is the same parent organization, but I don't think anyone is disputing that even though that's the strawman you are attacking. They are the same people that worked there and didn't protest publicly about the actions of the organization and/or didn't resign.
      - hueving 10y ago
        >They are the same people that worked there and didn't protest publicly about the actions of the organization and/or didn't resign. So nobody has left or joined MIT since the Aaron Schwartz case? Even ignoring that detail, I have a lot more respect for people that change an organization from within rather than quit immediately anytime something disagreeable happens. If everyone operated the way you are suggesting, we would essentially have institutions that would never change because nobody with different viewpoints could join.
kzrdude 10y ago
Your logical leap there is not sound.
- coldtea 10y ago
  Not much of a leap. At some point you either take a stand, even if it's against the official stance of the organization you work with, or you are branded with its decisions. "I was just following orders" and/or "I disagreed, but I was in the minority" is not an excuse.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > "I was just following orders" and/or "I disagreed, but I was in the minority" is not an excuse. Yes is is, both are valid.

williamle8300 10y ago

Would you say it's an "autonomous collective?"

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]