4 ms·

When you're the ceo/founder of a reasonably well-known company and donate money to bigoted, racist, sexist/etc political causes, you need to expect some blowbac

When you're the ceo/founder of a reasonably well-known company and donate money to bigoted, racist, sexist/etc political causes, you need to expect some blowback from the community that knows your company. No one said these people can't have those opinions. People simply take action (i.e. saying they will boycott mozilla products/services) based on their opinions about the issues.

danarmak 10y ago
Do you want to live in a world where people don't dare to support political causes (even privately or in secret) because, if discovered, a constituency opposed to that cause can successfully demand they be punished? Even when the political cause they support is as mainstream as the official candidate of one of the two big parties, or one side of a public vote as in the case of Eich? Even if you personally oppose Trump, there are enough Trump supporters to boycott organizations whose leaders are known to donate to Hillary Clinton. The natural outcome of such boycotts is segregation - a VR company catering to Democrats, and a different VR company catering to Republicans. More concretely: you can boycott Oculus for the private actions of its CEO. And other people can boycott a local cafe because its owner is known to donate to Planned Parenthood or because they agreed to make a cake for a gay wedding. Do you prefer both things to happen, or neither? One of the key principles of democracy is freedom of political association. The usual saying is "I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Those who don't hold to this norm, apart from being IMO unjust to their political opponents, risk being on the losing side in their turn.
- stephenr 10y ago
  When the two examples you have are a guy donating for a bigoted discriminatory and unconstitutional law, and a guy donating to a group supporting a racist, bigoted, sexist sociopath who wants to play mr president, it's not much of an argument. Even in the hypothetical: freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. I did say, no one says they cant do what they do, they just shouldn't be surprised when they get a reaction.
  - danarmak 10y ago
    The two cases are great examples of democracy. People want to elect a president that other people (like you) greatly disagree with. People want to vote for an amendment to their state constitution. (It was later ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, but before that it had been ruled constitutional by the state supreme court in Strauss v. Horton, so there seemed to be legitimate room for debate.) California Proposition 8 passed the public vote with 52% in favor, and Trump consistently polls above 40% today. Do you support boycotting every company where at least one executive officer belongs to a 40%+ part of the population? Do you really expect that, if applied fairly, this wouldn't result in boycotting almost all companies in the market? Would you support policies routinely vetting the private behavior of company executives? Are you alright with the other camp boycotting companies whose executives hold opinions you support? I believe that people should be able to employ, be employed, and not be ostracized, regardless of their private strictly legal and in fact mainstream political opinions, however odious those opinions may be to a subset of the population. Quite apart from morals, it's the only workable equilibrium in a politically polarized society.
    - stephenr 10y ago
      what is your solution? Force people to do business with people/companies against their will? I'm not sure about America but in the developed world, there are laws against shit like "I didn't hire him because he voted for Reagan" There are not laws forcing people/companies to do business regardless of their opinions on the behaviour/actions of a company/CEO/etc. Are you really saying allowing people to boycott things based on their own beliefs is bad?
      - danarmak 10y ago
        Of course we can't force people (by law) to do business with someone, and shouldn't try. What we should do is establish strong social norms against this kind of discrimination and against this kind of net outrage mob hounding of people. Speak out against them, support victims (regardless of political affiliation), try not to give in when targeted.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mzw_mzw 10y ago
Exactly. No one said that those Hollywood actors and writers couldn't support Communism. People simply take action (i.e. firing them) based on their opinions about the issues.
- stephenr 10y ago
  That's what unfair dismissal laws are for. Oh right sorry it's America, I thought we were talking about a developed nation for a second there.

danarmak 10y ago

Do you want to live in a world where people don't dare to support political causes (even privately or in secret) because, if discovered, a constituency opposed to that cause can successfully demand they be punished? Even when the political cause they support is as mainstream as the official candidate of one of the two big parties, or one side of a public vote as in the case of Eich? Even if you personally oppose Trump, there are enough Trump supporters to boycott organizations whose leaders are known to donate to Hillary Clinton. The natural outcome of such boycotts is segregation - a VR company catering to Democrats, and a different VR company catering to Republicans. More concretely: you can boycott Oculus for the private actions of its CEO. And other people can boycott a local cafe because its owner is known to donate to Planned Parenthood or because they agreed to make a cake for a gay wedding. Do you prefer both things to happen, or neither? One of the key principles of democracy is freedom of political association. The usual saying is "I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Those who don't hold to this norm, apart from being IMO unjust to their political opponents, risk being on the losing side in their turn.

stephenr 10y ago
When the two examples you have are a guy donating for a bigoted discriminatory and unconstitutional law, and a guy donating to a group supporting a racist, bigoted, sexist sociopath who wants to play mr president, it's not much of an argument. Even in the hypothetical: freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. I did say, no one says they cant do what they do, they just shouldn't be surprised when they get a reaction.
- danarmak 10y ago
  The two cases are great examples of democracy. People want to elect a president that other people (like you) greatly disagree with. People want to vote for an amendment to their state constitution. (It was later ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, but before that it had been ruled constitutional by the state supreme court in Strauss v. Horton, so there seemed to be legitimate room for debate.) California Proposition 8 passed the public vote with 52% in favor, and Trump consistently polls above 40% today. Do you support boycotting every company where at least one executive officer belongs to a 40%+ part of the population? Do you really expect that, if applied fairly, this wouldn't result in boycotting almost all companies in the market? Would you support policies routinely vetting the private behavior of company executives? Are you alright with the other camp boycotting companies whose executives hold opinions you support? I believe that people should be able to employ, be employed, and not be ostracized, regardless of their private strictly legal and in fact mainstream political opinions, however odious those opinions may be to a subset of the population. Quite apart from morals, it's the only workable equilibrium in a politically polarized society.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    what is your solution? Force people to do business with people/companies against their will? I'm not sure about America but in the developed world, there are laws against shit like "I didn't hire him because he voted for Reagan" There are not laws forcing people/companies to do business regardless of their opinions on the behaviour/actions of a company/CEO/etc. Are you really saying allowing people to boycott things based on their own beliefs is bad?
    - danarmak 10y ago
      Of course we can't force people (by law) to do business with someone, and shouldn't try. What we should do is establish strong social norms against this kind of discrimination and against this kind of net outrage mob hounding of people. Speak out against them, support victims (regardless of political affiliation), try not to give in when targeted.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

mzw_mzw 10y ago

Exactly. No one said that those Hollywood actors and writers couldn't support Communism. People simply take action (i.e. firing them) based on their opinions about the issues.

stephenr 10y ago
That's what unfair dismissal laws are for. Oh right sorry it's America, I thought we were talking about a developed nation for a second there.