zlacker

> Whether it's right or just in some sense is a different conversation.

The same conversation if it's "mature", surely? I'm failing to see how one thinks turning a blind eye to like, decades of sexual impropriety and major internal culture issues to the point the state takes action against your company is "mature". Like, under what definition?

>>riboso+(OP)
Mature, as in the opposite of ingenuous. It does no good to harm a company further. Kotick did enough damage, he left, all that needed to be said about him was said, tirelessly. Every effort to get him to offer some reparations - expended.

So what was there to gain from the company speaking ill of their past employee? What was even left to say? Nothing. No one wants to work in an organization that vilifies its own people. It was prudent.

I will emphasize again that the morality of these situations is a separate matter from tact. It is very well possible that doing what is good for business does not always align with what is moral. But does this come as a surprise to anyone?

We can recognize that the situation is not one dimensional and not reduce it to such. The same applies to the press release from Open AI - it is graceless, that much can be observed. But we do not yet know whether it is reprehensible, exemplary, or somewhere in between in the sense of morality and justice. It will come out, in other channels rather than official press releases, like in Bobby's case.

>>clnq+43
> Mature, as in the opposite of ingenuous

To tell it in an exaggerated way, maturity should not imply sociopathy or completely disregard for everything.

Obviously I am referring here to Kottick situation. But, the definition where it is immature to tell the truth and mature to enable powerful bad players is wrong definition of maturity.

>>watwut+hx
I respect your belief that maturity involves elevating morality above corporate sagacity. It is noble.

>>clnq+IV
I am not even demanding something super noble from mature people. I am fine with the idea that mature people do compromises. I do not expect managers to be saint like fighters for justice.

But, when people use "maturity" as argument for why someone must be enabler, should not do the morally or ethically right thing, then it gets irritating. Conversely, calling people "immature" because they did not acted in the most self serving but sleazy way is ridiculous.

>>clnq+IV
That comes across as pretty condescending. It's not like you have some sort of authoritative high ground about what does and doesn't constitute professionalism in the business world. It sounds to me that your version of professionalism is in line with what gets prescribed at your average mindless corporate human resources or public relations department. Which is fine, but there's zero proof that that is the correct way to do things, and it's actually naive on _your_ part to accept the status quo as is. And, as I said, incredibly condescending to assume it is somehow the "mature" point of view.