6 ms·

“California attorney Mark Lemley dropped Meta Platforms Inc. as a client in a high-profile copyright case because of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s “descent into toxic m

“California attorney Mark Lemley dropped Meta Platforms Inc. as a client in a high-profile copyright case because of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s “descent into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness,” the Stanford University professor said on LinkedIn” 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?

mont_tag 2y ago
PG also notes "a performative aspect". Lemley didn't quietly drop Meta; instead, he appears to have turned it into bragging rights on LinkedIn.
- stuaxo 2y ago
  When massive CEOs are doing stuff like this people absolutely should call them out, and if they are deciding to not take their money then it absolutely is the right thing to mention it. 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.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > the whole thing where people on the right invented "virtue signaling" is way to show off to each other I don't think this is a right-wing thing particularly?
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - Dracophoenix 2y ago
        The political profile of a faux-altruist doesn't matter if faux-altruism is practiced by almost everyone. "No ethical consumption in capitalism" is bandied by every champagne socialist who wants to justify their own participation, even flourishing, in an economic system they claim is bad for everyone else. Many of the politicians who claim to fight for all, regardless of party affiliation, kowtow to specific interest groups in order to ensure their hold on power, whether its last century's Tammany Hall or this century's fuzzily-delineated affinity groups. Hypocrisy cuts in a multitude of ways.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  I mean, given his profile, I think it would actually be far more damaging for Facebook if he _did_ silently drop them without giving a reason. It's usually a _super_ bad sign if your lawyer fires you for no stated reason; people would read into it. He's perfectly correct to clarify that it's for a reason unrelated to the case.
jickes 2y ago
[flagged]
afavour 2y ago
I agree that Neo-Nazi makes no sense but I’ll confess to being kind of confused by that PG quote. He’s using unfavorable language but what he seems to be describing is a person with absolute moral standards who calls out people who violate them. …is that supposed to be a bad thing? “Can’t we all be a little more morally relative” isn’t PG’s most inspiring rallying cry. 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.
- lazide 2y ago
  It is when it’s a giant performative shame piece, like this attorney seems to be doing. 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!”
  - theossuary 2y ago
    The irony is the same could be said about the PG article; why didn't he just quietly distance himself, instead of having to make a big public spectacle? Writing an entire blog post on "woke" is the definition of virtue signaling. 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.
    - celdon25 2y ago
      > Writing an entire blog post on "woke" is the definition of virtue signaling. 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).
andrewflnr 2y ago
> I’m not a fan of Zuckerberg, but a Neo-Nazi? 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"?
- archerx 2y ago
  This is clearly hyperbole, the only person that knows what is going on in Mark's head is Mark himself, everything else is just speculation. >What if he's just right? He's not.
  - archagon 2y ago
    …way to contradict yourself in only two sentences.
    - archerx 2y ago
      Where is the contradiction?
      - andrewflnr 2y ago
        You simultaneously claim that it's "clearly hyperbole", implying confidence, while in the next clause of the same sentence you claim "the only person who knows [...] is Mark himself", implying no confidence at all. 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.
thomassmith65 2y ago
If the rationale is that Zuckerberg is rolling over for the far right, then he's a neo-quisling more than a neo-nazi https://youtu.be/9gRBL-AeTbU https://youtu.be/9gRBL-AeTbU
- stuaxo 2y ago
  When he's donating a million dollars to this "inauguration fund" and writing weird posts about "masculine energy" I'm not sure this distinction matters. 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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
xzzzzzz 2y ago
> I'm not a fan of Zuckerberg, but a Neo-Nazi? As if that term didn't cover alt right in general.

mont_tag 2y ago

PG also notes "a performative aspect". Lemley didn't quietly drop Meta; instead, he appears to have turned it into bragging rights on LinkedIn.

stuaxo 2y ago
When massive CEOs are doing stuff like this people absolutely should call them out, and if they are deciding to not take their money then it absolutely is the right thing to mention it. 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.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > the whole thing where people on the right invented "virtue signaling" is way to show off to each other I don't think this is a right-wing thing particularly?
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Dracophoenix 2y ago
      The political profile of a faux-altruist doesn't matter if faux-altruism is practiced by almost everyone. "No ethical consumption in capitalism" is bandied by every champagne socialist who wants to justify their own participation, even flourishing, in an economic system they claim is bad for everyone else. Many of the politicians who claim to fight for all, regardless of party affiliation, kowtow to specific interest groups in order to ensure their hold on power, whether its last century's Tammany Hall or this century's fuzzily-delineated affinity groups. Hypocrisy cuts in a multitude of ways.
rsynnott 2y ago
I mean, given his profile, I think it would actually be far more damaging for Facebook if he _did_ silently drop them without giving a reason. It's usually a _super_ bad sign if your lawyer fires you for no stated reason; people would read into it. He's perfectly correct to clarify that it's for a reason unrelated to the case.

jickes 2y ago

[flagged]

afavour 2y ago

I agree that Neo-Nazi makes no sense but I’ll confess to being kind of confused by that PG quote. He’s using unfavorable language but what he seems to be describing is a person with absolute moral standards who calls out people who violate them. …is that supposed to be a bad thing? “Can’t we all be a little more morally relative” isn’t PG’s most inspiring rallying cry. 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.

lazide 2y ago
It is when it’s a giant performative shame piece, like this attorney seems to be doing. 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!”
- theossuary 2y ago
  The irony is the same could be said about the PG article; why didn't he just quietly distance himself, instead of having to make a big public spectacle? Writing an entire blog post on "woke" is the definition of virtue signaling. 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.
  - celdon25 2y ago
    > Writing an entire blog post on "woke" is the definition of virtue signaling. 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).

andrewflnr 2y ago

> I’m not a fan of Zuckerberg, but a Neo-Nazi? 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"?

archerx 2y ago
This is clearly hyperbole, the only person that knows what is going on in Mark's head is Mark himself, everything else is just speculation. >What if he's just right? He's not.
- archagon 2y ago
  …way to contradict yourself in only two sentences.
  - archerx 2y ago
    Where is the contradiction?
    - andrewflnr 2y ago
      You simultaneously claim that it's "clearly hyperbole", implying confidence, while in the next clause of the same sentence you claim "the only person who knows [...] is Mark himself", implying no confidence at all. 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.

thomassmith65 2y ago

If the rationale is that Zuckerberg is rolling over for the far right, then he's a neo-quisling more than a neo-nazi https://youtu.be/9gRBL-AeTbU https://youtu.be/9gRBL-AeTbU

stuaxo 2y ago
When he's donating a million dollars to this "inauguration fund" and writing weird posts about "masculine energy" I'm not sure this distinction matters. 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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

xzzzzzz 2y ago

> I'm not a fan of Zuckerberg, but a Neo-Nazi? As if that term didn't cover alt right in general.