[leoh]

Supposing you were terminated, in your view, without just cause; that you had issued what you viewed as an entirely reasonable ultimatum — the grounds of which, in this case, you can read about. Certainly there is a good chance you would be deeply upset, too, and might find it difficult to engage with individuals who are, by default, skeptical of her; i.e. to take a continued, defensive (as opposed to "offensive") stance. For the sake of argument: I would perhaps argue that the skepticism itself, which is held by many in tech at the moment, could be collectively considered institutionally racist.

[HexagonalKitten]

> For the sake of argument: I would perhaps argue that the skepticism itself, which is held by many in tech at the moment, could be collectively considered institutionally racist.

Well, if all racism is, is some deserved skepticism then I guess it isn't at all important. Or, is that not the message you're trying to send?

You aren't steel-manning Gebru's points, you're weakening the entire argument until what you hear she's said could be made to fit.

> you had issued what you viewed as an entirely reasonable ultimatum

That's 100% incompatible with asking for the identities of your anonymous reviewers. Even if you were to demonstrate a problem with a anonymous you do it with the label 'Reviewer 1'. That's how it's been done forever and it should be obvious why.