6 ms·

He isn't even that unwelcome. Here was MIT’s response for context: https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/important-update-re-eaps https://orgchar

He isn't even that unwelcome. Here was MIT’s response for context: https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/important-update-re-eaps https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/importa...

rp1 5y ago
Not picking sides here, but surely you must admit actions speak louder than words. Imagine you were invited by an institution to give a talk who then canceled your talk due to unrelated views you held. How likely would you be to accept another offer to speak at the institution?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- manwe150 5y ago
  I agree, I don’t want to pick sides either. It sounds like he did agree to the other offer though, which feels like a nuance missing from this oped which could have been mentioned without undermining his rant.
jollybean 5y ago
That's helpful context, but if they didn't think he should speak at an event, they shouldn't have invited him. His rhetoric is well within bounds, let him speak.
civilized 5y ago
We hear this kind of minimization a lot when we want to talk about bad decisions made in the name of DEI. If he was disinvited, it doesn't matter because he wasn't censured. If he was censured, it doesn't matter because he wasn't fired. If he was fired, it doesn't matter because he'll get another job. If no one will give him another job, it doesn't matter because he deserved it.
- md8z 5y ago
  The way you've phrased this comment without any context makes it really hard to respond. If there are zero people in the world who want to work with you, maybe consider that the problem is yourself? What value are you really gaining from being stubborn about social issues if nobody else agrees with you?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Bostonian 5y ago
    Not that long ago, people who supported same-sex marriage were a small minority. Should they have been banned from giving technical talks and expelled from research groups?
    - md8z 5y ago
      No, of course not. If you consider all other possible opinions on social matters to be morally equivalent to a random person's stance on same-sex marriage then I don't know what to tell you, that seems to be a very difficult way to have a conversation about anything.
  - civilized 5y ago
    Is it your impression that "zero people" disagree with prevailing DEI orthodoxy?
    - md8z 5y ago
      Sorry but I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, can you please be more specific?
      - civilized 5y ago
        > If there are zero people in the world who want to work with you, maybe consider that the problem is yourself? What point did you intend to make here? Who are these zero people? Who is the person who should consider if the problem is themselves?

rp1 5y ago

Not picking sides here, but surely you must admit actions speak louder than words. Imagine you were invited by an institution to give a talk who then canceled your talk due to unrelated views you held. How likely would you be to accept another offer to speak at the institution?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
manwe150 5y ago
I agree, I don’t want to pick sides either. It sounds like he did agree to the other offer though, which feels like a nuance missing from this oped which could have been mentioned without undermining his rant.

jollybean 5y ago

That's helpful context, but if they didn't think he should speak at an event, they shouldn't have invited him. His rhetoric is well within bounds, let him speak.

civilized 5y ago

We hear this kind of minimization a lot when we want to talk about bad decisions made in the name of DEI. If he was disinvited, it doesn't matter because he wasn't censured. If he was censured, it doesn't matter because he wasn't fired. If he was fired, it doesn't matter because he'll get another job. If no one will give him another job, it doesn't matter because he deserved it.

md8z 5y ago
The way you've phrased this comment without any context makes it really hard to respond. If there are zero people in the world who want to work with you, maybe consider that the problem is yourself? What value are you really gaining from being stubborn about social issues if nobody else agrees with you?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Bostonian 5y ago
  Not that long ago, people who supported same-sex marriage were a small minority. Should they have been banned from giving technical talks and expelled from research groups?
  - md8z 5y ago
    No, of course not. If you consider all other possible opinions on social matters to be morally equivalent to a random person's stance on same-sex marriage then I don't know what to tell you, that seems to be a very difficult way to have a conversation about anything.
- civilized 5y ago
  Is it your impression that "zero people" disagree with prevailing DEI orthodoxy?
  - md8z 5y ago
    Sorry but I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, can you please be more specific?
    - civilized 5y ago
      > If there are zero people in the world who want to work with you, maybe consider that the problem is yourself? What point did you intend to make here? Who are these zero people? Who is the person who should consider if the problem is themselves?