4 ms·

> No, he's saying that employees using public forums to call other employees (including former employees) "batshit insane" are not welcome within Mozilla. Let'

> No, he's saying that employees using public forums to call other employees (including former employees) "batshit insane" are not welcome within Mozilla. Let's do a thought experiment. If the post had been, "[NAME] was one of those batshit insane men's rights types. I'll be glad when all of his kind have left Mozilla and taken their misogyny elsewhere," would the CEO be reacting in the same fashion? Would The Verge write approvingly about it? If not, then we're really not talking about some studiously neutral principle, and we should stop pretending that we are.

gcp 11y ago
Well, feminists want equal rights for women. A misogynist hates women. One of those is compatible with the companies code of conduct and the other isn't. So I think it's fair to treat them differently.
- zaccus 11y ago
  I'm confused, which are you saying is compatible? According to the article the former clearly is, but I don't imagine Mozilla's HR puts up with misogyny either.
  - gcp 11y ago
    Feminism is fine and compatible. Misogyny isn't and not compatible. I'm assuming expressing hate towards a group counts as an "exclusionary practice" whereas demanding equal rights isn't.
- hga 11y ago
  But 13thLetter didn't say "misogynist", he said "men's rights types". Certainly many of them hate women, just as clearly as many feminists hate men, but that doesn't automatically make all of either type haters.
  - gcp 11y ago
    He literally said: "taken their misogyny elsewhere"
    - hga 11y ago
      You said "feminist" and equated it with "misogynist", not "misogyny". I say the relevant equivalents are: Feminists and men's rights types. Misandrists/misandry and misogynists/misogyny.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Ok then. So it sounds like we've established that this is not some purely neutral principle, despite such claims elsewhere in this comments section. Calling some employees "batshit insane" is perfectly fine.
  - gcp 11y ago
    Wouldn't say that it's perfectly fine but yes, it's probably more likely that the CEO won't care if something bad is being said about an employee that broke the organization's rules, than the reverse. I would think is this common sense but HN never disappoints.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> If not, then we're really not talking about some studiously neutral principle, No one has suggested that either the CEO or the Verge is acting out of studious neutrality. Some people have suggested a neutral principal within which the CEO's action is within the range of acceptable actions given the event it responds to, but nothing in your hypothetical -- whether or not one assumes (its not really a thought experiment, its just a projection of one's biases) that the action would have been similar or different -- addresses that. If, instead of asking if the individual actors behaviors would have been the same, one were to ask would the actions have been justified if they were the same, we would at least be discussing the only neutral principle that has been proposed -- but even then, there is room to debate whether or not there are meaningful differences. But nice and elaborate strawman that you've set up there.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  > No one has suggested that either the CEO or the Verge is acting out of studious neutrality. If I may quote: "No, he's saying that employees using public forums to call other employees (including former employees) "batshit insane" are not welcome within Mozilla." > But nice and elaborate strawman that you've set up there. No, a thought experiment. For those who figured they could come up with a neutral principle, I presented another situation to apply those principles to. The general reaction was "well, that's different because of the beliefs of the employee." Which is what I was getting at all along: if you work for Mozilla you either toe the line with Mozilla's ideology or at the very least better keep your opinions to yourself, even anonymously on a dusty corner of an Internet message board. If not, the CEO will denounce you in the media, attempt to find out your identity, and if he succeeds, fire you. Brendan Eich wasn't a one-off; he was a model for the future. Now it seems a lot of people are fine with that. And that, in turn, is fine! I'm happy for you: you have a major browser which is only for people of your political persuasion, which is not something everyone gets to say. Those who don't care about the ideology of the engineers who write their applications may be less happy, but I suppose that's our problem.

gcp 11y ago

Well, feminists want equal rights for women. A misogynist hates women. One of those is compatible with the companies code of conduct and the other isn't. So I think it's fair to treat them differently.

zaccus 11y ago
I'm confused, which are you saying is compatible? According to the article the former clearly is, but I don't imagine Mozilla's HR puts up with misogyny either.
- gcp 11y ago
  Feminism is fine and compatible. Misogyny isn't and not compatible. I'm assuming expressing hate towards a group counts as an "exclusionary practice" whereas demanding equal rights isn't.
hga 11y ago
But 13thLetter didn't say "misogynist", he said "men's rights types". Certainly many of them hate women, just as clearly as many feminists hate men, but that doesn't automatically make all of either type haters.
- gcp 11y ago
  He literally said: "taken their misogyny elsewhere"
  - hga 11y ago
    You said "feminist" and equated it with "misogynist", not "misogyny". I say the relevant equivalents are: Feminists and men's rights types. Misandrists/misandry and misogynists/misogyny.
13thLetter 11y ago
Ok then. So it sounds like we've established that this is not some purely neutral principle, despite such claims elsewhere in this comments section. Calling some employees "batshit insane" is perfectly fine.
- gcp 11y ago
  Wouldn't say that it's perfectly fine but yes, it's probably more likely that the CEO won't care if something bad is being said about an employee that broke the organization's rules, than the reverse. I would think is this common sense but HN never disappoints.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> If not, then we're really not talking about some studiously neutral principle, No one has suggested that either the CEO or the Verge is acting out of studious neutrality. Some people have suggested a neutral principal within which the CEO's action is within the range of acceptable actions given the event it responds to, but nothing in your hypothetical -- whether or not one assumes (its not really a thought experiment, its just a projection of one's biases) that the action would have been similar or different -- addresses that. If, instead of asking if the individual actors behaviors would have been the same, one were to ask would the actions have been justified if they were the same, we would at least be discussing the only neutral principle that has been proposed -- but even then, there is room to debate whether or not there are meaningful differences. But nice and elaborate strawman that you've set up there.

13thLetter 11y ago
> No one has suggested that either the CEO or the Verge is acting out of studious neutrality. If I may quote: "No, he's saying that employees using public forums to call other employees (including former employees) "batshit insane" are not welcome within Mozilla." > But nice and elaborate strawman that you've set up there. No, a thought experiment. For those who figured they could come up with a neutral principle, I presented another situation to apply those principles to. The general reaction was "well, that's different because of the beliefs of the employee." Which is what I was getting at all along: if you work for Mozilla you either toe the line with Mozilla's ideology or at the very least better keep your opinions to yourself, even anonymously on a dusty corner of an Internet message board. If not, the CEO will denounce you in the media, attempt to find out your identity, and if he succeeds, fire you. Brendan Eich wasn't a one-off; he was a model for the future. Now it seems a lot of people are fine with that. And that, in turn, is fine! I'm happy for you: you have a major browser which is only for people of your political persuasion, which is not something everyone gets to say. Those who don't care about the ideology of the engineers who write their applications may be less happy, but I suppose that's our problem.