8 ms·

> fire people, based on their opinions. Lest we forget: - Brendan Eich, former CEO of Mozilla, fired for a donation, - Douglas Crockford, uninvited from Node

by tajen 10y ago

> fire people, based on their opinions. Lest we forget: - Brendan Eich, former CEO of Mozilla, fired for a donation, - Douglas Crockford, uninvited from NodeVember, the general opinion is that he said something that a woman didn't like, - Tom Preston-Werner, co-founder and former CEO of GitHub, upon an unproven accusation, - And all people and the 2 colleagues who have been fired in smaller companies, in smaller events, without proof, only based on lynching and without demonstratedly due process to determine what they're guilty about (@mr-kanks from PyCon, I think about you every day I talk with a woman at work).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
33333333333 10y ago
- Curtis Yarvin, creator of Urbit, disinvited from presenting at the Strange Loop conference on programming languages after Steve Klabnik and perhaps other participants threatened to withdraw over Yarvin's political blog posts.
- badsock 10y ago
  Doing something socially objectionable invites social consequences. I bet that Kony 2012 guy got uninvited from speaking engagements too.
  - mreiland 10y ago
    Doesn't mean it's right, it just means people are assholes. Lets we forget, not believing in slavery was socially objectionable not that long ago.
- prospero 10y ago
  Calling other races well-suited to slavery isn't political, it's hate speech.
  - tajen 10y ago
    It's up to a juge to decide that. If the population decides, it's called lynching.
    - badsock 10y ago
      Absolute hyperbole. Lynching is when someone is killed. Dropping a speaker from a conference schedule isn't murder.
- steveklabnik 10y ago
  NB: I was never participating, so I could have never threatened to withdrawl.
TheGirondin 10y ago
- GrubHub CEO saying that anyone who voted for Trump is not welcome.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  That's not really what he said. He said that a Trump victory makes some people fearful, and he wants a workplace that fosters the opposite of that, and that if you cannot foster an inclusive and diverse workplace that you are not welcome. I don't think what he did say was quite eloquent and it was clearly emotionally heated, but it didn't imply nor state that Trump voters are unwelcome.
  - FreezerburnV 10y ago
    "... and these views, have no place at Grubhub. ... If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here." Obviously only excerpts from the full email[0], but seems to contradict what you just said pretty heavily. If I was someone who voted for Trump that worked at Grubhub, I know that I would have been afraid for my job after that email. Possibly even still would be, and might even consider moving jobs in order to not be afraid of that. [0] The full original text of his email is at the bottom of this page: http://media.grubhub.com/media/press-releases/press-release-details/2016/Inclusion-and-Tolerance-in-the-Workplace/default.aspx http://media.grubhub.com/media/press-releases/press-release-...
    - ethanbond 10y ago
      Again, nothing in here is referring to a Trump vote or people who voted for Trump. It's referring to things like ridiculing or mocking minorities, immigrants, and disabled people. Which I think we can all agree are things that Trump did and have no place in a workplace like Grubhub, no?
      - FreezerburnV 10y ago
        People should not be mocked, agreed. But I think things get more complicated in the current environment where people who have voted for Trump have basically been labeled the same as him. It's apparently possible to have a "hateful attitude", or be racist, or whatever else, which can get you fired at GrubHub, by having voted for Trump. But honestly, regardless of arguing intent or whatever, I think the crux of the argument boils down to this: If you had voted for Trump and worked at GrubHub, would you be comfortable going to the CEO and saying "I voted for Trump" without fearing for your job, after that email? I would imagine the number of people at the company who don't/didn't feel that is non-zero (purely based on a vote, not based on if anyone there is actually racist), and I view that as completely inappropriate.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
77pt77 10y ago
> Douglas Crockford, uninvited from NodeVember, the general opinion is that he said something that a woman didn't like Anything to back that up?
- tnone 10y ago
  This post compares the allegations with the harmless actual quotes: http://atom-morgan.github.io/in-defense-of-douglas-crockford http://atom-morgan.github.io/in-defense-of-douglas-crockford This appears to have been the instigator: https://twitter.com/nexxylove/status/771503661956501504 https://twitter.com/nexxylove/status/771503661956501504
  - iNerdier 10y ago
    I don't get how either of those quotes could be seen as attacking anyone.
    - tnone 10y ago
      Congratulations, you've just discovered the truth behind the entire women in tech moral panic.
    - 77pt77 10y ago
      Maybe because you are mentally sane.
- woah 10y ago
  I don't want to look for it right now, but somebody dug up a "do you have the gonads for monads" speech and was offended by the mention of gonads. I think the conference that uninvited him ended up reinviting him.
- 0xCMP 10y ago
  side note: This happened without his involvement in social media at all. Others, collectively, used social media to get that effect.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Senji 10y ago
Dongle gate. A "tech evangelist". A scum position held not even by a proper developer managed to get fired two developers with children. Over bullshit that was supposed to stay private to those two men's inane joke in a private conversation that the "evangelist" listend in on.
gaur 10y ago
> Brendan Eich, former CEO of Mozilla, fired for a donation, Fired for a donation that supported enshrining discrimination in a state constitution. It was a good firing. Support nasty causes, win nasty prizes.
- tajen 10y ago
  It was before the law was voted, and the law was in favor of his opinion at the time, therefore there was nothing reprehensible at the time. Plus, the point is, if we purge people based on their political opinions, why bother with democracy?
  - grzm 10y ago
    "the law was in favor of his opinion at the time, therefore there was nothing reprehensible at the time." What is legal is not the same as what is moral or ethical. Figuring out how to tolerate dissent is an issue I think a lot of people are trying to figure out right now, as your statement is pointing to.
    - tajen 10y ago
      What about you let people privately support the causes they believe in? He may have good reasons to think that, which aren't forbidden by law. It was legal, it is moral for some people, it is ethical for others, what about we let him do his job of managing a technical company? Companies shouldn't be forced to fire people who are considered as "witches" by the people, as long as they're competent in their job. It takes a huge amount of time to train CEOs and keep replicas on hot standby in a company, if the company has to second-guess the people's opinion about the politics (or sexual life) of CEOs, it's bad for the economy. And if we practice a witch hunt at every level of companies, it quickly goes unethical. See this quote from GitHub's new Diversity Director: > "Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women"
      - grzm 10y ago
        I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my comment. I'm not taking a position on what happened in with respect to Brendan Eich in particular. As I wrote, I think figuring out how to balance this is a difficult issue. Given the amount of discussion this instance in particular and similar situations, I think it's far from settled for a lot of people. At least there's not wide agreement. You bring up good points regarding the training and the costs of replacing people. Those costs are balanced against the value brought to the company, right? One of the reasons I think it's difficult to discuss as when people start giving examples as to what should be tolerated and what shouldn't, some people are going to think it's absurd, and take issue with the discussion as a whole. For the sake of argument, I'll try. Let's say one of the goals of the company is to provide honeymoon packages and the target market is gay couples. An employee makes a donation in support of something like Prop 8. Is there a conflict there? Are they a good fit for the company? If not, should they look for someone else? Perhaps the person shouldn't have been hired in the first place. Should the company be able to make that decision based on knowing the candidate made such a donation? Should the candidate look elsewhere and not consider a position at the company? Can a company's goals change over time? Can a company's goals include those broader than just the product they market? You mention "let him do his job of managing a technical company". I think there's tension here, as well (independent of the situation at Mozilla). People are not purely rational beings. How people get along in the workplace is important to its overall effectiveness. What's acceptable in one workplace is not going to be acceptable in another, similar to how people have different circles of friends. Should companies be able to hire for fit? Fire for it? I think there are some very real questions there. And a lot of contentious issues. Please don't assume my answers to all of these questions, either. You're guaranteed to be wrong as I haven't come to a firm conclusion on all of them :) If toleration of political opinion is a settled issue for you, please share :) Can you think of a political position that should not be tolerated? The whole "what's legal is not necessarily moral or ethical" is another kettle of fish, which is the point I was making initially. Your point about what's moral for some people and ethical for others points to some agreement on your part, doesn't it? Perhaps one difference is whether or not we agree that a company can or should have an ethical purpose or should reflect the ethics of the people who own the company or work of the company. Or do business for the company, for that matter. I don't expect you to have answers to all of these questions. I'd be surprised if you did. If you don't think these are valid questions, I'd be interested to hear which ones are invalid and why.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Like these cases are no much worse than all the people who have been fired for being gay or experienced employment discrimination over their gender or gender identity.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  If you're saying that people shouldn't be discriminated against for their gender and they also shouldn't be discriminated against for their political views, then hey! We're in 100% agreement.

by tajen 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

33333333333 10y ago

- Curtis Yarvin, creator of Urbit, disinvited from presenting at the Strange Loop conference on programming languages after Steve Klabnik and perhaps other participants threatened to withdraw over Yarvin's political blog posts.

badsock 10y ago
Doing something socially objectionable invites social consequences. I bet that Kony 2012 guy got uninvited from speaking engagements too.
- mreiland 10y ago
  Doesn't mean it's right, it just means people are assholes. Lets we forget, not believing in slavery was socially objectionable not that long ago.
prospero 10y ago
Calling other races well-suited to slavery isn't political, it's hate speech.
- tajen 10y ago
  It's up to a juge to decide that. If the population decides, it's called lynching.
  - badsock 10y ago
    Absolute hyperbole. Lynching is when someone is killed. Dropping a speaker from a conference schedule isn't murder.
steveklabnik 10y ago
NB: I was never participating, so I could have never threatened to withdrawl.

TheGirondin 10y ago

- GrubHub CEO saying that anyone who voted for Trump is not welcome.

ethanbond 10y ago
That's not really what he said. He said that a Trump victory makes some people fearful, and he wants a workplace that fosters the opposite of that, and that if you cannot foster an inclusive and diverse workplace that you are not welcome. I don't think what he did say was quite eloquent and it was clearly emotionally heated, but it didn't imply nor state that Trump voters are unwelcome.
- FreezerburnV 10y ago
  "... and these views, have no place at Grubhub. ... If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here." Obviously only excerpts from the full email[0], but seems to contradict what you just said pretty heavily. If I was someone who voted for Trump that worked at Grubhub, I know that I would have been afraid for my job after that email. Possibly even still would be, and might even consider moving jobs in order to not be afraid of that. [0] The full original text of his email is at the bottom of this page: http://media.grubhub.com/media/press-releases/press-release-details/2016/Inclusion-and-Tolerance-in-the-Workplace/default.aspx http://media.grubhub.com/media/press-releases/press-release-...
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    Again, nothing in here is referring to a Trump vote or people who voted for Trump. It's referring to things like ridiculing or mocking minorities, immigrants, and disabled people. Which I think we can all agree are things that Trump did and have no place in a workplace like Grubhub, no?
    - FreezerburnV 10y ago
      People should not be mocked, agreed. But I think things get more complicated in the current environment where people who have voted for Trump have basically been labeled the same as him. It's apparently possible to have a "hateful attitude", or be racist, or whatever else, which can get you fired at GrubHub, by having voted for Trump. But honestly, regardless of arguing intent or whatever, I think the crux of the argument boils down to this: If you had voted for Trump and worked at GrubHub, would you be comfortable going to the CEO and saying "I voted for Trump" without fearing for your job, after that email? I would imagine the number of people at the company who don't/didn't feel that is non-zero (purely based on a vote, not based on if anyone there is actually racist), and I view that as completely inappropriate.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

77pt77 10y ago

> Douglas Crockford, uninvited from NodeVember, the general opinion is that he said something that a woman didn't like Anything to back that up?

tnone 10y ago
This post compares the allegations with the harmless actual quotes: http://atom-morgan.github.io/in-defense-of-douglas-crockford http://atom-morgan.github.io/in-defense-of-douglas-crockford This appears to have been the instigator: https://twitter.com/nexxylove/status/771503661956501504 https://twitter.com/nexxylove/status/771503661956501504
- iNerdier 10y ago
  I don't get how either of those quotes could be seen as attacking anyone.
  - tnone 10y ago
    Congratulations, you've just discovered the truth behind the entire women in tech moral panic.
  - 77pt77 10y ago
    Maybe because you are mentally sane.
woah 10y ago
I don't want to look for it right now, but somebody dug up a "do you have the gonads for monads" speech and was offended by the mention of gonads. I think the conference that uninvited him ended up reinviting him.
0xCMP 10y ago
side note: This happened without his involvement in social media at all. Others, collectively, used social media to get that effect.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Senji 10y ago

Dongle gate. A "tech evangelist". A scum position held not even by a proper developer managed to get fired two developers with children. Over bullshit that was supposed to stay private to those two men's inane joke in a private conversation that the "evangelist" listend in on.

gaur 10y ago

> Brendan Eich, former CEO of Mozilla, fired for a donation, Fired for a donation that supported enshrining discrimination in a state constitution. It was a good firing. Support nasty causes, win nasty prizes.

tajen 10y ago
It was before the law was voted, and the law was in favor of his opinion at the time, therefore there was nothing reprehensible at the time. Plus, the point is, if we purge people based on their political opinions, why bother with democracy?
- grzm 10y ago
  "the law was in favor of his opinion at the time, therefore there was nothing reprehensible at the time." What is legal is not the same as what is moral or ethical. Figuring out how to tolerate dissent is an issue I think a lot of people are trying to figure out right now, as your statement is pointing to.
  - tajen 10y ago
    What about you let people privately support the causes they believe in? He may have good reasons to think that, which aren't forbidden by law. It was legal, it is moral for some people, it is ethical for others, what about we let him do his job of managing a technical company? Companies shouldn't be forced to fire people who are considered as "witches" by the people, as long as they're competent in their job. It takes a huge amount of time to train CEOs and keep replicas on hot standby in a company, if the company has to second-guess the people's opinion about the politics (or sexual life) of CEOs, it's bad for the economy. And if we practice a witch hunt at every level of companies, it quickly goes unethical. See this quote from GitHub's new Diversity Director: > "Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women"
    - grzm 10y ago
      I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my comment. I'm not taking a position on what happened in with respect to Brendan Eich in particular. As I wrote, I think figuring out how to balance this is a difficult issue. Given the amount of discussion this instance in particular and similar situations, I think it's far from settled for a lot of people. At least there's not wide agreement. You bring up good points regarding the training and the costs of replacing people. Those costs are balanced against the value brought to the company, right? One of the reasons I think it's difficult to discuss as when people start giving examples as to what should be tolerated and what shouldn't, some people are going to think it's absurd, and take issue with the discussion as a whole. For the sake of argument, I'll try. Let's say one of the goals of the company is to provide honeymoon packages and the target market is gay couples. An employee makes a donation in support of something like Prop 8. Is there a conflict there? Are they a good fit for the company? If not, should they look for someone else? Perhaps the person shouldn't have been hired in the first place. Should the company be able to make that decision based on knowing the candidate made such a donation? Should the candidate look elsewhere and not consider a position at the company? Can a company's goals change over time? Can a company's goals include those broader than just the product they market? You mention "let him do his job of managing a technical company". I think there's tension here, as well (independent of the situation at Mozilla). People are not purely rational beings. How people get along in the workplace is important to its overall effectiveness. What's acceptable in one workplace is not going to be acceptable in another, similar to how people have different circles of friends. Should companies be able to hire for fit? Fire for it? I think there are some very real questions there. And a lot of contentious issues. Please don't assume my answers to all of these questions, either. You're guaranteed to be wrong as I haven't come to a firm conclusion on all of them :) If toleration of political opinion is a settled issue for you, please share :) Can you think of a political position that should not be tolerated? The whole "what's legal is not necessarily moral or ethical" is another kettle of fish, which is the point I was making initially. Your point about what's moral for some people and ethical for others points to some agreement on your part, doesn't it? Perhaps one difference is whether or not we agree that a company can or should have an ethical purpose or should reflect the ethics of the people who own the company or work of the company. Or do business for the company, for that matter. I don't expect you to have answers to all of these questions. I'd be surprised if you did. If you don't think these are valid questions, I'd be interested to hear which ones are invalid and why.

anigbrowl 10y ago

Like these cases are no much worse than all the people who have been fired for being gay or experienced employment discrimination over their gender or gender identity.

mzw_mzw 10y ago
If you're saying that people shouldn't be discriminated against for their gender and they also shouldn't be discriminated against for their political views, then hey! We're in 100% agreement.