4 ms·
Don't lie. Both in this thread (and in others not involving me, e.g. below) you have been continually presenting a chronology of the situation that omits the c
by vanusa 5y ago
Don't lie.
Both in this thread (and in others not involving me, e.g. below) you have been continually presenting a chronology of the situation that omits the crucial fact that before he was fired he was told to stop using email to discuss these matters (including specifically references to these "attacks" against him). An explicit directive, in other words. Then he willfully chose to violate this directive.
Any attempt to paint this simply as a matter of "getting fired for criticizing BLM", therefore, is flat-out misleading.
That's enough to conclude our discussion on this matter.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29858175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29858175
- civilized 5y ago> Any attempt to paint this simply as a matter of "getting fired for criticizing BLM" is flat-out misleading. You've committed yet another dishonest misrepresentation. I didn't say that criticizing BLM was the sole or "simple" cause of the firing. But only a lunatic or a partisan hack could deny that it was a critical contributing factor, without which the event would not have occurred. I do not think it is relevant whether TR illegally barred Kriegman from using email to complain about harassment against a protected class. If that is the reason they fired him, let them say so in court and invite the consequences. Until then, there is no evidence. I am happy to conclude the discussion if it means your stream of lies and misrepresentations will end.