> I pioneered the use of Deep Learning for understanding, analyzing and composing legal documents within the company, leading a team of Deep Learning scientists to help the company rapidly ramp up its proficiency with the technology and transform its business.
This sounds like marketing bullshit to me… What a weird way to start a post like this.
Both because there's been previous discussion already and because the title is misleading. He definitely was not fired for "criticizing BLM" as such -- but for failing to comply with a company request not to use internal boards to do so.
You have no evidence for your claims and are dishonestly representing them as proven fact. Don't lie.
All we know is that he was fired after posting something to internal social media (he claims the post was reviewed prior to posting by HR and the head of DEI) followed by an email complaint about being harassed.
There is no evidence that TR fired him because of the email complaint. If they did, they violated civil rights law because he was emailing to complain about discrimination against a protected class. This is called illegal retaliation.
And previous discussion is not a valid reason to flag a post. Don't compound your lies by abusing the HN flagging system.
This sort of behavior is dangerous to HN culture and richly deserving of being flagged.
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.
> 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.
12 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 43.8 ms ] threadThis sounds like marketing bullshit to me… What a weird way to start a post like this.
Both because there's been previous discussion already and because the title is misleading. He definitely was not fired for "criticizing BLM" as such -- but for failing to comply with a company request not to use internal boards to do so.
All we know is that he was fired after posting something to internal social media (he claims the post was reviewed prior to posting by HR and the head of DEI) followed by an email complaint about being harassed.
There is no evidence that TR fired him because of the email complaint. If they did, they violated civil rights law because he was emailing to complain about discrimination against a protected class. This is called illegal retaliation.
And previous discussion is not a valid reason to flag a post. Don't compound your lies by abusing the HN flagging system.
This sort of behavior is dangerous to HN culture and richly deserving of being flagged.
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
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.