Is there a point to saying something like this other than to be explicitly uncompassionate towards those affected?
I could simply respond with "sorry to hear you upset yourself by considering these people entitled", and it would have about the same merit.
It's like telling somebody after a close relative or some else dear to them died that what, did they expect that person would live forever? No, do you?
Do you genuinely think their feelings of betrayal stem from an unreasonable notion of the world? Have you at all considered that the expectations they harbored were not 100% of their own creation?
> Is there a point to saying something like this other than to be explicitly uncompassionate towards those affected?
those "affected" have the same little compassion towards many millions of others who are not lucky to work on AI in top school and visiting top AI conference. That's what makes them entitled.
How would you know that everyone who felt "betrayed" were also "have the same little compassion towards many millions of others who are not lucky to work on AI in top school and visiting top AI conference"?
This is just blatantly painting high profile individuals with a negative brush because it personally appeals to your fantasies.
feeling betrayed is my test criteria, since many others are "betrayed" much more, but those individuals focused on their feelings and not on systematic issues in general, hence this makes them "entitled".
> This is just blatantly painting high profile individuals with a negative brush because it personally appeals to your fantasies.
you have to check your language if you want to continue productive discussion.
I disagree with your test criteria. It doesn't adequately support that entitlement is present in or applies to these people. You can be swayed by your feelings for a myriad of things, on its own I do not consider that any sufficient. Even if they come from a privileged background or gained a privileged status by virtue of studying where they did.
> you have to check your language if you want to continue productive discussion.
I disagree that my use of language was unreasonable. And to clarify, I do not wish to continue this conversation, productively or otherwise.
The mistake in their argument was appealing to structural issues while essentializing that stratum as 'entitled', an individualistic attribution. It tells on its own resentment while preaching structural causes. Anyways it's the holidays and we could all use a little compassion and nonjudgmental empathy.
Sorry, but these people are not victims. I went through a tech PhD; it was well-known how fast the wind changes and the trendy topic falls by the wayside. Big data and crowdsourcing pre-AI boom, then ML, then ethics of AI (around 2020-21), now we are at AI agents which is inherently more product-oriented. Beyond this, we had COVID and a now brutal tech market, despite the US economy seemingly way up and the AI craze continuing. If you went into a CS PhD thinking nothing changes and people will beg you to take cushy salary positions with total freedom, then you simply didn’t do your research.
I suspect many commentators would say the same thing to the English majors out there who were told that passion and a college degree would lead to economic mobility and not a load of debt. Weren’t they also harboring unreasonable views that were not 100% of their own creation?
I'm unable to read minds, so if in your head that self-serving scenario played out such that they were, then they were. Does that justify being uncompassionate towards them by calling them entitled? Is entitled really the best fit for what they were being, rather than say, just plain unreasonable or misguided? Can you read minds that you know they were thinking the world owes them and that's how they developed a passion and completed a college degree?
I’m glad you are willing to treat both groups the same. I suspect many on this site wouldn’t and would take pains to explain how they’re entirely different :)
Maybe I'm just not smart/eloquent enough to come up with a response like GP, but often I'll have arguments in my head where it looks like:
- make a point A
- oh, counterexample with point B
- ehh that's a good point logically...
but I'll just go with point A anyways, especially when point A is something generally optimistic, and point B is cynical.
I don't like going into social arguments for this reason - it's very easy (and often logically correct) to create an ad-absurdum counter-argument to a lot of our general social beliefs.
But to be a functioning human being, sometimes you just have to take the optimistic choice regardless. I know that certainly when I was constantly listening to B, I was depressed out of my mind; would rather be "delusional and stubborn" on some things than depressed.
Twice two might not be five, but it keeps your sanity.
I could simply respond with "sorry to hear you upset yourself by considering these people entitled", and it would have about the same merit.
It's like telling somebody after a close relative or some else dear to them died that what, did they expect that person would live forever? No, do you?
Do you genuinely think their feelings of betrayal stem from an unreasonable notion of the world? Have you at all considered that the expectations they harbored were not 100% of their own creation?