That’s sounds like there is more to the story?
Lawyers don’t bail for vague reasons like this in my experience
“[Zuckerberg's] descent into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness,” -Lemley
This sounds like The Trang calling for a special termination on Col. Kurtz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMBF3kXHoZM&t=6s
"insane sir, obviously insane..."
“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?
If the rationale is that Zuckerberg is rolling over for the far right, then he's a neo-quisling more than a neo-nazi
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.
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.
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!”
> performative shame piece, like this attorney seems to be doing.
How is it performative when there is actually an action behind it?
Fair point - performative would be continuing to be their attorney.
Virtue signaling is probably more accurate, as a sibling comment noted.
Taking concrete professional action in line with and motivated by your personal values is virtue signaling? Is there a correct way you want people to model and yes, signal, the prosocial values that they want to reproduce in the world?
Publicly kick a puppy while you're announcing your action. That way you can make sure that you don't get any reputation benefits from the action.
Personally, I take my cans out of the recycling bin and throw them in the trash while staring my neighbors in the eyes.
Where does the LinkedIn post fit in?
I love the phrase "virtue signaling," because someone non-ironically using it is openly admitting that the behavior question is virtuous, thus implying that the opposite behavior is wrong. This seems to be lost on most people.
That isn’t the actual usage.
The actual usage is doing something to ‘appear virtuous’. Usually in the context of actual actions being non-congruent with the actual underlying virtue. Otherwise the person is just a (perhaps in a small degree) a saint.
Do you think this Lawyer is a saint?
If they do literally nothing, or the opposite of what they are doing then it is purely performative. It doesn’t have to be purely performative though.
For example, if a city spends a lot of time and effort showing how they are doing recycling and end up putting it into a landfill without further processing? That is purely performative virtue signaling.
If they sort it, and sell it to someone (at a loss), but that company ends up producing more waste/emissions while doing the processing, then it’s virtue signaling, it is at least not purely performative virtue signaling. They are putting some money where their mouth is.
Either way, it doesn’t actually solve any real underlying problems though (probably). And frankly, what are the odds the attorney actually just got fired?
> That isn’t the actual usage.
Yes, it is, at least in the way I see it used the majority of the time.
All of your examples prove my point: the person calling recycling “virtue signaling” is admitting that the idea of recycling is virtuous.
When people say this attorney is virtue signaling, they’re admitting that him firing FB as a client for being neo-Nazis is virtuous.
> what are the odds the attorney actually just got fired?
Low.
The point is, the idea is virtuous. The reality often isn’t.
So going on and on about the idea can often cause more harm than good.
And almost no one goes on a loud rant when the split was amicable/voluntary.
I believe that we should all rant, loudly and often, against racists, misogynists, homophobes, etc.
And where do you think there is evidence of Zuck actually being those things?
In every single action he’s taken with respect to the incoming administration over the last several weeks.
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.
> 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).
> Writing a serious piece to an audience that is already there to seek out opinions from that individual
I certainly didn't seek out his opinion on culture war topics. The actual nuanced take would be: A business writer with no political knowledge decides to weigh in on politics in a clearly performative way.
> whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant, the nazi in that situation is you
Ther irony hurts, you claim calling others a Nazi for associating and supporting Nazis is wrong, but I'm also actually the Nazi for saying it? What happened to free speech?
> A business writer with no political knowledge decides to weigh in on politics in a clearly performative way.
Um, no. Wokeism is definitely within his wheelhouse as a VC, as it plays a big role in corporate policies, and macro market conditions, even in tech.
> associating and supporting Nazis is wrong
That wasn't your original quote, you mentioned seating positions. Unless you just mistakenly left out the part about it being in a prison I don't see how that original statement makes sense.
PG also notes "a performative aspect". Lemley didn't quietly drop Meta; instead, he appears to have turned it into bragging rights on LinkedIn.
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.
> 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?
[flagged]
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.
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.
> 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"?
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.
…way to contradict yourself in only two sentences.
Where is the contradiction?
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.
> I'm not a fan of Zuckerberg, but a Neo-Nazi?
As if that term didn't cover alt right in general.
[flagged]
[dead]
I hope Zuck sues him for slander, libel, breach of contract and/or defamation. This is performative virtue signalling at its most cringe.
[dead]
That's one way to trash your professional reputation. When you hire a lawyer, you expect them to defend you to the best of their ability regardless of your personal beliefs; if you are a lawyer, you discard your personal political and religious associations to focus on the job at hand. If you are unable to do this, you simply lack the mental fortitude necessary to be a good lawyer.
If I knew my lawyer was so affected by political or religious association that they would drop me in the middle of a case if my views simply disagreed with theirs - I would immediately fire them.
People really need to learn to separate their Xitter personality from their professional life. All that said, this reads more like "lawyer gets fired, attempts to re-phrase as 'I fired my client.'"
A lot of those statements about how a lawyer is to conduct themselves do still assume clients act in good faith. If Zuck really is descending into neo-nazism, I wouldn't want to defend that either. I could not handle it morally, ethically, or conciously. It would not have been what I signed up for.
Zucks lawyer signed up to defend a specific man, the kind of man who would not do neo-nazi shit, so when that changes so too does the deal, no?
Except no "neo-Nazi shit" is happening and hyperbolic exaggeration like this not only dilutes the meaning of the word but creates fatigue in the general public, causing them to tune out future accusations.
If you're a lawyer and you can't consciously go to bat for over 50% of the country because you genuinely think they are "neo-nazis" - yeah, don't be a lawyer. But do see a therapist, because that's probably a condition in the DSM.
How is dining with and financially supporting a man who is openly racist, sexist, ableist, and homophobic, and who is an ultra-nationalist strongman who wants to “save America,” not doing “neo-Nazi shit”? Genuinely curious here — there seem to be a lot of comments with the attitude that calling Zuck a neo-Nazi is crazy hyperbole, but there seems to be quite a bit of evidence right in front of us.
We can of course debate about the precise definition of neo-Nazi. And sure, maybe this attorney should have used all the words I used above instead, but I don’t think it’s necessarily too far off to use “neo-Nazi” as a shortcut.
While *ultra-nationalism*, *xenophobia*, and support for *authoritarian tendencies* are concerning, automatically equating them with *neo-Nazism* risks diminishing the specific historical horror and ideology of Nazism. Neo-Nazism explicitly involves beliefs in racial supremacy, antisemitism, and the violent overthrow of democratic systems - we need clear evidence of these specific elements before applying that label.
business leaders often meet with and maintain relationships across the political spectrum for pragmatic reasons rather than ideological alignment. While this doesn't excuse enabling harmful rhetoric, it suggests we should distinguish between *strategic engagement* and genuine ideological support. The attorney's characterization seems to skip past this nuance.
> need clear evidence of these specific elements before applying that label
There is clear evidence of at least one of those things. Like it or not, as I said in my original post, “neo-Nazi” is close enough, I think.
Any business leader considering “strategic engagement” with the incoming administration is clearly morally bankrupt and deserves loud and public scorn, whether or not they ideologically support it.