7 ms·

Curious what you think the response should be.

• sandofsky 11y ago
  If the person is toxic, and nothing will change that, get rid of them before any more damage is done. I could argue that even if they're 10x more productive, they will drive off far more than 10 contributors. But really you do it because it's the right thing to do.
  • yarou 11y ago
    The ultimate and delicious irony of your comment is that you endorse a behavior that is in and of itself toxic -- publicly crucifying somebody because you don't agree with their beliefs. This line of thinking is not only dangerous, it's downright disgusting.
    • sandofsky 11y ago
      So, would you accept a known racist in your community?
      • yarou 11y ago
        I would accept a demon that worked, rather than an angel that spoke. A person's beliefs have nothing to do with the quality of their work.
        • sandofsky 11y ago
          You are an embodiment of tech's diversity problem.
          • yarou 11y ago
            No, I am the embodiment of logic and reason in a world where nepotism reigns. Except the nepotism isn't derived from hereditary privilege or income; it is derived from a particularly virulent philosophy that is not rooted in reality. Also, I am an Indian-American male, second generation. Please don't speak for me when you have no idea how it feels to be a minority in the US. I'm not some mascot you can parade around to make yourself feel justified in your flawed philosophy and ideals.
            • sandofsky 11y ago
              Would you work at a company where your boss doesn't think Indians should be allowed to marry? Despite donating to campaigns to outlaw it, he promises it won't affect your job.
              • yarou 11y ago
                I already work at a company (a "major one" like the Narrator of Fight Club references) where someone like me shouldn't marry a white woman (or even an Asian one for that matter). That doesn't stop me from achieving my goals. [0] [0] http://youtu.be/1QSFQoOL92A http://youtu.be/1QSFQoOL92A
          • dang 11y ago
            > You are an embodiment Personal attacks are not allowed on HN, even if someone's view is wrong.
      • clocksld 11y ago
        Let's flip this question around: If the project owner is a known racist, should they accept a pro-equality person into their project? Are you arguing that people should close off their communities to people with differing opinions, or are you arguing that people should close off their communities to people who you personally disagree with? If it is the former, then you are short-sighted and petty, and if it is the latter, then YOU are what is wrong with the open-source world. One of the major ideas behind the hacker ethic and the open-source collaborative ideal is that ANYONE skilled enough can contribute to projects, get their ideas heard, and improve the community effort. No amount of fascist and self-flagellating political bullying will make your walled-garden alternative a better idea than a truly all-inclusive community. Yes, If a contributor spouts their political opinions on mailing lists or developer forums and derails discussions, then it is obvious that they are having a negative impact on the community. But kicking out a well-behaved and technically adept contributor simply because you don't like their views? By doing that, you have made your project appear FAR worse to potential contributors than accepting contributions from a "known racist" ever could. The REAL "toxic people" in a community are those who try to get skilled and reasonable contributors thrown out because of childish political quibbles.
    • robbrown451 11y ago
      I see what you did there.
    • Frondo 11y ago
      The flip side, which you seem to endorse, is that people should have no way to censure (in the realm of public discourse or social opinion, not any legal sense) those whose views they don't agree with. Obviously, Eich had some widely unpopular views, and much of the country didn't agree with his beliefs. No one sued him, no one jailed him, people who didn't agree with him on a widely-debated social issue of the day just created a media campaign to draw attention to his retrograde views. I'm curious, though. If he were donating to a more offensive cause, like the KKK or something, would you hold the same position that his political views should be beyond discussion?
      • sanxiyn 11y ago
        Yes. In my opinion, as long as someone doesn't try to preach KKK value in the community or come to community gathering wearing KKK robe, whether someone donates to KKK is beyond discussion.
        • Frondo 11y ago
          On what basis do you think that someone's political views should be beyond mere discussion? I'm trying to figure out why--discussing the views held by your fellow citizen--that is a bad thing. I'm trying to understand how that advances any sort of democratic principle, to draw the line at "you can't talk about what I donate to".
    • JohnBooty 11y ago
      I find it very significant that Eich's supporters always reference "his beliefs" in the vaguest possible sense, and never "his belief that gay Americans ought to be denied various legal rights." Denying legal rights to a group of people is not compatible with Mozilla's mission or spirit.
      • scintill76 11y ago
        > ought to be denied various legal rights I think you have to be a little more specific. If merely removing a former legal right is evil, who were the bad guys when a Maryland referendum removed the right to own slaves[0]? Yes, I went there, but hear me out. I think you need to talk about moral rights, not legal rights, because some legal rights came about because of bad laws or the court evolving the laws contrary to the voters' wishes. (By referring to the voters' wishes, I'm not endorsing "might makes right" per se but noting that voters essentially, if indirectly, define what is "legal" so you ought to appeal to morality instead.) Also, if the correct position is that marriage in any shape is a legal right, are we going to crucify people who made polygamy illegal?[1] Or since they're dead now, can we hold it against any current official who does not actively support this kind of marriage equality? Is tolerating an unjust status quo less evil than changing it for the worse? Or, what argument can you make to prohibit polygamy that won't sound awfully like the arguments against gay marriage? I'm maybe being crippled by idealism and naivety here, but I guess I'm bothered by people adopting fashionable causes as a reason to hate people who don't believe in them, when we're all hypocrites and there's injustice everywhere if you have an open mind. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/the-not-quite-free-state-maryland-dragged-its-feet-on-emancipation-during-civil-war/2013/09/13/a34d35de-fec7-11e2-bd97-676ec24f1f3f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/the-not-qui... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act
        • JohnBooty 11y ago
          I think you have to be a little more specific. If merely removing a former legal right is evil, who were the bad guys when a Maryland referendum removed the right to own slaves I think the answer to that is clear if you subscribe to the principal that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. It's certainly true that the slaveowners had the rug pulled out from under them in a sense but their legal right to own slaves infringed (to put it mildly) on pretty much every single human right the slaves had. With same-sex marriage, on the other hand, it's very difficult to see how one person's consensual marriage could possibly infringe on another person's rights. Also, if the correct position is that marriage in any shape is a legal right, are we going to crucify people who made polygamy illegal? You're absolutely right: the polygamy question is very tricky. I can't give you a single objective reason why it shouldn't be legal.[1] It's incredibly fallacious, though, to suggest that same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry simply because there's another tricky marriage-rights question out there. (If we discover that there's a wrongfully-convicted person serving time in a state prison, should we make him stay there because we haven't figured out what to do with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay?) are we going to crucify people who made polygamy illegal? I'd say that we should consider their views in the context of the times in which they lived. The human race has come a long way in the last couple of centuries in terms of recognizing human rights. Hopefully some things that you and I believe today will be viewed as positively caveman-like in 200 years. That's the price of progress. I'm bothered by people adopting fashionable causes as a reason to hate people who don't believe in them This and the "crucify" thing are really straw man arguments. I'm certain there are some exceptions out there but during the entire Eich/Mozilla public debate, I didn't see anybody (certainly not anybody prominent) claiming that Eich was a terrible person or that we should hate him. I certainly don't hate Brendan Eich; he seems like a good person in general. Even if it was the right thing to do, which I think it was, nobody "won" that whole mess. The Mozilla community lost a great contributor. ___ [1] I believe you should be able to legally designate whomever you like as a family member and assign whatever family-related rights you want to them. The government should generally stay out of the morality business as long as everything is between consenting adults. From a purely legal standpoint, titles like "wife" or "brother" or "cousin" are really just titles that confer various sets of default rights and establish a default order of precedence for inheritance and power of attorney. (On a personal level those titles mean much more to me than that, but that's my business)
    • bfg 11y ago
      "you endorse a behavior that is in and of itself toxic -- publicly crucifying somebody because you don't agree with their beliefs... it's downright disgusting." Lol, didn't take you long to become a hypocrite on that one! But seriously, "someone" and "CEO of a major corporation that relies on its good image" are different things. We rightly hold them to different standards. Holding unpopular (and exclusionary) political beliefs is incompatible with leading a company like Mozilla.
      • yarou 11y ago
        I disagree sempai. Holding a CEO to a different standard than a common employee is a recipe for elitism. I will reiterate that a person's beliefs have no bearing on their ability.
        • bfg 11y ago
          You hold CEOs to a different standard because they are the public face of an organization; their personal brand impacts the brand of the company. That's not elitism, that's common sense. If a common employee holds some unpopular opinion, why should anyone care? But if the CEO does, it damages the company, and the company should care about that.
          • Frondo 11y ago
            Well, and go one further: if a common employee does hold an unpopular opinion and they publicize it widely, think how long they'll last at the company anyway. Take a totally fictional example, a product manager at Intel who, on the weekends, has been leading neo-nazi marches and getting on the news. The reporters ask him, "what do you do to pay for all these flags and banners and tattoos?" "Oh, I work at Intel during the week. I'm a product manager in the networking hardware division." Think how many weekends they'd give out that interview answer before Intel let them go for whatever reason.