For me, toxicity often boils down to these questions: Are you acting in good faith or not? Are you acting to resolve a disagreement and advance knowledge, or is the primary function of your speech to inflame and provoke? Do you accept that it is possible for smart people to disagree with you, or do you believe any disagreement is completely unacceptable?
When I view Gebru's Twitter argument with Lecun throug the above lens, it is pretty obvious to me that she is behaving in a toxic manner.
In that fracas, she emphasizes emotional appeals and "you just need to listen to us" and "I'm so sick of this". She also takes a page from the AOC school of argument where you (the rhetorician) play the meta-game where you judge who is allowed to participate in discourse (hint: everyone who disagrees with me is excluded!). It's a useful trick, for once you have purified the field your arguments will easily win.
Lecun later offered an olive branch and apology, but, true to form, Gebru doesn't offer any hint of awareness that she also may be responsible for the toxic devolution of the conversation. She personally blamed Lecun for her getting trolled, whilst failing to acknowledge that he was also being trolled by her supporters.
Later, and separately, when Google calls her on her resignation bluff, she employs the "call out" tactic, where she accuses Jeff Dean of personally firing her in an obvious attempt to shame him. This whole affair reeks of a PR play (and thus, not acting in good faith). That, to me, is highly toxic.
Wow, this is really well articulated and a great analysis of modern Twitter-driven social complaint. Please consider expanding this (IE, iterating over the various techniques used to "win" social arguments on Twitter). You can see her other tweets and replies, but I'd also include and contrast less progressive tweeters (such as the president's supporters).
When I view Gebru's Twitter argument with Lecun throug the above lens, it is pretty obvious to me that she is behaving in a toxic manner.
In that fracas, she emphasizes emotional appeals and "you just need to listen to us" and "I'm so sick of this". She also takes a page from the AOC school of argument where you (the rhetorician) play the meta-game where you judge who is allowed to participate in discourse (hint: everyone who disagrees with me is excluded!). It's a useful trick, for once you have purified the field your arguments will easily win.
Lecun later offered an olive branch and apology, but, true to form, Gebru doesn't offer any hint of awareness that she also may be responsible for the toxic devolution of the conversation. She personally blamed Lecun for her getting trolled, whilst failing to acknowledge that he was also being trolled by her supporters.
Later, and separately, when Google calls her on her resignation bluff, she employs the "call out" tactic, where she accuses Jeff Dean of personally firing her in an obvious attempt to shame him. This whole affair reeks of a PR play (and thus, not acting in good faith). That, to me, is highly toxic.