3 ms·

from: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-political-spectrum-quiz/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-po... 2. The

from: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-political-spectrum-quiz/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-po... 2. The anchor of a major news network donates lots of money to organizations fighting against gay marriage, and in his spare time he writes editorials arguing that homosexuals are weakening the moral fabric of the country. The news network decides they disagree with this kind of behavior and fire the anchor. a) This is acceptable; the news network is acting within their rights and according to their principles b) This is outrageous; people should be judged on the quality of their work and not their political beliefs 12. The principal of a private school is a member of Planned Parenthood and, off-duty, speaks out about contraception and the morning after pill. The board of the private school decides this is inappropriate given the school’s commitment to abstinence and moral education and asks the principal to stop these speaking engagements or step down from his position. a) The school board is acting within its rights; they can insist on a principal who shares their values b) The school board should back off; it’s none of their business what he does in his free time If you answer these questions differently, you need to try to apply your so-called principles consistently. This article is bullshit for the same reason the Brendan Eich affair was bullshit--if the situation were reversed, the same people calling for Brendan Eich's head would have been ardently defending someone who had been fired for donating to marijuana legalization or something. As long as he's not discriminating or smoking weed in the workplace, etc., YOU SHOULD NOT PERSECUTE SOMEONE FOR HIS BELIEFS or how they affect his political contributions.

pko722 10y ago
Sigh. People keep bringing up Brendan Eich. What happened there is very simple: a good chunk of Mozilla PR and marketing is about freedom. Software and online freedom, yes, but the word "freedom" is used a fair bit. Eich monetarily supported a cause that aimed to take away freedom for a certain class of people. This is incongruent for the face of an organization that has freedom one of its core messages. Mozilla is fairly unique in tech world in this regard. Nearly all other companies don't really talk about freedom. If Eich was the CEO of any of those other companies, his donation would not (and should not) have mattered. If Eich had remained CTO of Mozilla, his donation would not have mattered either, as the CTO is not the face of the organization. The CEO's beliefs, however, do need to align with the core messaging of the company. As for those who say that in 2008, opposing gay marriage was a mainstream view, and even Obama opposed it: in 2012, Obama publicly went on the record that his views had shifted to support. The Mozilla/Eich thing went down in 2014, and Eich had an opportunity to communicate that he'd changed his views. If he did that sincerely, he'd likely be CEO of Mozilla today. Instead he stood by his 2008 views, reaffirming that he's on the wrong side of history.
- ryanobjc 10y ago
  ALSO his inability to handle the controversy demonstrated his lack of CEO abilities.
  - BrendanEich 10y ago
    You don't know what went on during my ten days as CEO, but that won't stop you from disparaging my CEO abilities without actual evidence, will it? Talk to @christi3k or @lsblakk or others who supported me before you disparage, if you care about testimony from people who were there. Important update (should go without saying): that I left does not prove anything about CEO abilities. There's only one line I do say about why I left, and it is vague. You can find it on my blog from 3 April 2014, I'm not repeating it here.
jamesshorten 10y ago
Your questions present a false dichotomy. You can be against the news anchor merely because of his principles and against the school board because of theirs. To me this is logically consistent because you believe the viewpoints themselves are incorrect.
- sosodaft 10y ago
  The problem is that you're not the arbiter of all correctness in the universe--what if you're not around to tell everyone what's correct, or what if you don't know, or are wrong? Peoples' careers and lives shouldn't be subject to vagaries of public opinion. That's why we have a legal system for resolving legitimate grievances. If YC believes that (for example) Peter Thiel has damaged their brand by so strongly supporting Trump, they can sue him for their just compensation. If they find that they have no real grounds for such, they can deal with the fact that we live in a society that prizes having a broad diversity of opinions, some of which are odious but which we must tolerate anyway.

pko722 10y ago

Sigh. People keep bringing up Brendan Eich. What happened there is very simple: a good chunk of Mozilla PR and marketing is about freedom. Software and online freedom, yes, but the word "freedom" is used a fair bit. Eich monetarily supported a cause that aimed to take away freedom for a certain class of people. This is incongruent for the face of an organization that has freedom one of its core messages. Mozilla is fairly unique in tech world in this regard. Nearly all other companies don't really talk about freedom. If Eich was the CEO of any of those other companies, his donation would not (and should not) have mattered. If Eich had remained CTO of Mozilla, his donation would not have mattered either, as the CTO is not the face of the organization. The CEO's beliefs, however, do need to align with the core messaging of the company. As for those who say that in 2008, opposing gay marriage was a mainstream view, and even Obama opposed it: in 2012, Obama publicly went on the record that his views had shifted to support. The Mozilla/Eich thing went down in 2014, and Eich had an opportunity to communicate that he'd changed his views. If he did that sincerely, he'd likely be CEO of Mozilla today. Instead he stood by his 2008 views, reaffirming that he's on the wrong side of history.

ryanobjc 10y ago
ALSO his inability to handle the controversy demonstrated his lack of CEO abilities.
- BrendanEich 10y ago
  You don't know what went on during my ten days as CEO, but that won't stop you from disparaging my CEO abilities without actual evidence, will it? Talk to @christi3k or @lsblakk or others who supported me before you disparage, if you care about testimony from people who were there. Important update (should go without saying): that I left does not prove anything about CEO abilities. There's only one line I do say about why I left, and it is vague. You can find it on my blog from 3 April 2014, I'm not repeating it here.

jamesshorten 10y ago

Your questions present a false dichotomy. You can be against the news anchor merely because of his principles and against the school board because of theirs. To me this is logically consistent because you believe the viewpoints themselves are incorrect.

sosodaft 10y ago
The problem is that you're not the arbiter of all correctness in the universe--what if you're not around to tell everyone what's correct, or what if you don't know, or are wrong? Peoples' careers and lives shouldn't be subject to vagaries of public opinion. That's why we have a legal system for resolving legitimate grievances. If YC believes that (for example) Peter Thiel has damaged their brand by so strongly supporting Trump, they can sue him for their just compensation. If they find that they have no real grounds for such, they can deal with the fact that we live in a society that prizes having a broad diversity of opinions, some of which are odious but which we must tolerate anyway.