12 ms·

This whole question really stems from a sad and pervasive tendency for 'intelligent' people to overestimate their general expertise, and then apply their value

This whole question really stems from a sad and pervasive tendency for 'intelligent' people to overestimate their general expertise, and then apply their value judgements to individuals in their social circle, regardless of its utility or relevance. Examples of this: Alan Turing -- father of Computer Science shunned, at the time, because everyone had value judgements regarding his homosexuality (completely irrelevant to Computer Science). The Mozilla CEO fired for his personal donation in opposition to gay marriage. (Again, completely irrelevant to his relationship with the Mozilla project). This, of course, continues further, with things such as Hollywood blacklisting (today) Conservatives, and formerly Communists. The solution is simple: Within a community, individuals should only be judged based on their contributions and value within that community. If I am deeply opposed to gay marriage, but a fantastic coder, that should not affect my standing within a community that is entirely code focused. If I strongly believe in UFO visitations, and disbelieve climate change, but am a great graphic designer, that should not affect my reputation as an artist. Everyone is not expected to be right, or agreeable, about everything, with everyone else. Aiming for this is pointless. This inability to separate emotions and passions from cooperating on a shared focus with others, of differing emotions and passions, but equal interest in the shared focus (community) is deeply damaging. There are enough problems and difficulties getting skilled people together to work on something great -- there is no use at all in reducing that crowd of people further by limiting it to those who share ones views in any number of hot button issues. Leave politics to your political circles, make your own impressions of people before making personal judgements from reputation, find every reason to work together, not any excuse not to.

pjc50 9y ago
> deeply opposed to gay marriage, but a fantastic coder, that should not affect my standing within a community that is entirely code focused Do you think someone can really work effectively with their gay married co-contributors in this case? Being inclusive is great, but you have to recognise that including certain people drives others away from the project.
- cs1717p 9y ago
  Can a vegan work with someone with a non restricted diet? Can an atheist work with a muslim? In either case, the answer is the same: if the individuals behave professionally, yes. If the married gay couple are the ones freaking out at work about my hiring someone who posted against gay marriage on his blog two years ago, they are behaving unprofessionally and should be let go. If it is the anti-gay marriage advocate who is making snide comments about his colleagues at work (or, in the context of a non work environment, in a shared community forum), then it is he who should be excluded.
  - Fishkins 9y ago
    Your examples aren't analogous. An analogous examples is: Can a Muslim person work with someone who believes the practice of religion should be outlawed and is working to make that happen?
    - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
      Can an atheist work with people that believe that they will be, justifiably, tortured for eternity?
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        Again, not the same thing. As far as the atheist is concerned, that belief is ridiculous. You're conflating belief with action. A better example would be an atheist working with someone trying to impose religious law.
        aeorgnoieang 9y ago
        It seems like you're analyzing all of these situations assuming that one side is correct. If you already know everything then obviously you're going to be a benevolent dictator. There's no obvious delineation between belief and action and a the gist of what I was replying to was along the lines of 'can people work with each other even tho they have strong and significant differences in their beliefs or opinions'. There's no way to even know a person's beliefs without some action on their part. Take Brendan Eich – he donated to a group that was engaging in 'speech'. Are you claiming that all 'speech' is action? So how exactly is someone stating that they're a Muslim not an action in the same way? Are you saying it would be fine if Eich believed that gay marriage should remain illegal as long as he never expressed that belief in any way to anyone?
yttrium 9y ago
What a ridiculous idea. If you are deeply opposed to gay marriage, the only way that becomes an issue is if it bleeds over into your work. This sort of bigotry becomes a problem because people who are deeply opposed to gay marriage can't shut up about it or stop themselves from trying to apply their 'values' to others who didn't ask for it. This inability to separate emotions and passions from cooperating on a shared focus with others, of differing emotions and passions, but equal interest in the shared focus (community) is deeply damaging. This is equally nonsense. Being alive and being a functional member of society means realizing that there are passions and emotions that do not belong in any work environment. Being intolerant of gay people is one of them.
- cs1717p 9y ago
  No, displaying those passions or emotions does not belong in any work environment. One should be able to hold whatever views they like, and even share them with others in other communities without it affecting their work life, or status in a community without a direct interest in the controversial topic in question.
  - yttrium 9y ago
    You should not be able to hold whatever views you like and participate in the community. There is no form of bigotry that belongs in software. The problem is not that these are just controversial topics - They're beliefs and actions that directly infringe on others ability to lead their best and healthy life. Tolerating hatred by disguising it as 'diversity of thought' is just a way of masking and shielding people who need to be brought into reality. You cannot be an moral participant in our profession while believing that others lifestyles don't belong.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      Members of a community should be allowed to hate each other, so long as they can leave each other alone. Worst case, they might have to be separated, with other community members acting as intermediaries. It is simply not practical to exclude a community member whenever they have a passionate disagreement with someone else, even if that topic is highly relevant to the community, because every two people are going to find something they disagree about. Part of being a mature person is being able to work together with someone you'd rather not interact with, because you realize that in that moment, your interests are partially aligned.
SolaceQuantum 9y ago
I think an issue is that by including some people you are by necessity working to make other groups unwelcome: the choice to be apolitical is a political choice.
- cs1717p 9y ago
  No, the only people you are making unwelcome are either: 1) those who don't know the time and place for their non community relevant outbursts ('meat is murder', 'homosexuality is a sin' are both irrelevant to 99% of tech or other industry community/work discussions) -- leave that for your vegan blog, or your church group. 2) those who are unable to behave courteously in the presence of someone they know holds differing views in some area they are passionate about. Just because I have read Jennys vegan blog, and know and disagree with her 'meat is murder' sentiment doesn't mean I can't work effectively with her. People need to be able to separate their general leanings and passions from their commitments to a job or other community.
  - SolaceQuantum 9y ago
    Being a minority is not a general leaning or a passion. Knowing your superior wants you dead(white supremacists) or psychologically tortured(conversion therapy) or inherently doesn't believe in your competence(sexism, racism, what have you) is not something one just shrugs off. Choosing to to be apolitical is a political stance. It would be nice if we could magically divorce people's work from their stance, but their stance will affect how they treat their peers and juniors- this is how patterns of oppression become systems. If a person has beliefs that women are inherently less capable of work, they will be unlikely to volunteer women for promotions or even see their women coworkers as having performed the work done. If a person has beliefs that black people are more violent or thuggish, they are unlikely to view that black coworker asserting that a technology requirement is utterly stupid in the same light as a white coworker asserting the same. I should emphasize these are not conscious, malicious behaviors. We are taught things about our peers and these teachings change our views on the context of the work of our peers. People rarely consciously, maliciously try to prevent the advancement of a disenfranchised group. Instead, their beliefs of that group prevent them from seeing that a member of the group deserves advancement. People do not differentiate from the contexts of their pervasive views on how they view every other person around them. They do not cease being sexist because their workplace claims to be apolitical. It merely means they no longer have repercussions within their workplace for their beliefs, regardless of the countless absolutely unprovable ways these beliefs bleed into work.
ChrisSD 9y ago
> The Mozilla CEO fired for his personal donation in opposition to gay marriage. (Again, completely irrelevant to his relationship with the Mozilla project). He was fired as CEO, not as CTO or any other technical position. The CEO is meant to represent the organisation. Denying rights to individuals goes against Mozilla's ethos and detracts from its campaign goals. Put simply, if the CEO isn't supported by their org then they are an ineffective CEO.
- dsacco 9y ago
  > The CEO is meant to represent the organisation. Denying rights to individuals goes against Mozilla's ethos and detracts from its campaign goals. This implies Mozilla is intrinsically a political organization, because that’s an explicit stance on a political topic. I can buy your argument here about a CEO’s personal views being incompatible with their position, but it means we need to accept that the reason for that incompatibility is the organization must have political opinions. Does Mozilla describe itself as a political organization anywhere? I can’t immediately find a statement of its principles/values.
  - rmc 9y ago
    > This implies Mozilla is intrinsically a political organization ... Does Mozilla describe itself as a political organization anywhere? I can’t immediately find a statement of its principles/values. Basically yes. Look at the "Mozilla Manifesto" ( https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ ), some of which are quite political: > 2. The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible. > 4. Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional. > 9. Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial profit and public benefit is critical.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - icebraining 9y ago
xwvvvvwx 9y ago
The Mozilla CEO fired for his personal donation in opposition to gay marriage. (Again, completely irrelevant to his relationship with the Mozilla project). Probably quite relevant to his position as CEO of an organisation that employs (and would like to hire) LGBT people.
- cs1717p 9y ago
  No more relevant than a CEO of a company that hires people of all diets being a passionate vegan who believes eating meat is immoral. As long as his personal views don't impact his professional behaviour, the two are not connected.
  - xwvvvvwx 9y ago
    Brendan Eich took active steps to deny fundamental rights to gay / queer people.
    - cs1717p 9y ago
      By which you mean he made a campaign donation.
    - dsacco 9y ago
      You might believe he did that. Brendan Eich likely doesn’t believe that, or he doesn’t believe those specific rights are fundamental, or he has a different interpretation of those rights. When you frame his behavior the way you just did, you immediately position your perspective as right and the other perspective as wrong, but the parent’s point is that this isn’t relevant either way. His behavior was not expressed in the workplace, and he was not pushing a violent agenda. He doesn’t need to be correct in all of his personal views, he just needs to be capable of working with people of differing lifestyles, and he needs to segregate his own beliefs from the workplace.
    - bigleagueposter 9y ago
      Radical vegan want to deny the fundamental right of eating meat.
gadders 9y ago
I would modify your statement slightly: >>If I am deeply opposed <<a particular cause or ideology>> [but don't let it affect with how I interact with people in my role], but a fantastic coder, that should not affect my standing within a community that is entirely code focused.
rmc 9y ago
> The Mozilla CEO fired for his personal donation in opposition to gay marriage. He wasn't fired, he stepped down.
wilde 9y ago
Do executives get to have private views? It’s unfortunate, but the media seems to love using personal actions by executives as representative of the company they work for. So in Eich’s case I think Mozilla had a legitimate concern that his personal views would be perceived as the company’s stance.
naner 9y ago
So you're saying the solution is simple, everyone just needs to change their behavior?
- wolfgke 9y ago
  > So you're saying the solution is simple, everyone just needs to change their behavior? I think his argument is: Everybody should do their work that is the purpose of the community. This is why they are member of the community.
menacingly 9y ago
The Brendan Eich situation is really interesting. I've personally cited it as a gross overreach into his personal life. But it has been really fruitful to play out scenarios with it and explore my own ethics system, perhaps exposing some gaps. I personally tend to break conservatively in my views, but I would be equally outraged if a liberal were fired for supporting, say, communist revolution. I certainly understand why people who hold certain views would want that person fired, but I have no problem separating that from their work. I wouldn't want them running my country, but Mozilla is fine. I ultimately arrived at the outcome that in order to be consistent, I don't think it's OK for any _position_ someone takes to be considered for work performance. Actions, sure, but a position must have absolute freedom. So, if my CEO were to consider people who vote for republicans subhuman (not an entirely unlikely scenario today), but otherwise conducted themselves fairly, I'd be OK with it. So, did Eich take a position, or an action? Are you really allowed to have a position if you aren't allowed to support it? I'll say action, despite my bias urging me to say position. Was this action taken to support his desire to preserve something, or to deny someone else of something? If you're one of the people impacted by this action, does it matter? These questions make it easy to see the tough position Mozilla was in. I'm not sure what conclusion I'd have reached in their shoes, despite my from-the-hip decision that he did nothing wrong.
- Toboe 9y ago
  >So, if my CEO were to consider people who vote for republicans subhuman (not an entirely unlikely scenario today), but otherwise conducted themselves fairly, I'd be OK with it. So, lets pretend you work for Mozilla, you like the mission statement* and seriously believe in it/that your work is helping that cause. You also think it is a relevant part of your branding. You really wouldn't have a problem with your CEO saying repub voters are subhuman? No clash between "open and accessible to all" and "subhuman"? You wouldn't be upset at that violation of the creed/mission statement? You wouldn't think it to be harmful to your companies branding? (And therefore to your company) You wouldn't think it harmful to the "team spirit"/motivation? I find that surprising, to be honest. ("Reason to fire" questions aside) * "Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all. An Internet that truly puts people first, where individuals can shape their own experience and are empowered, safe and independent."[1] [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/
SomeHacker44 9y ago
The post by cs1717p seems somewhat reasonable on the surface but causes a massive visceral backlash in my gut as I read it. So, while I haven't given it enough thought to figure out why, I vehemently disagree. I disagree about the Mozilla CEO comment specifically. If something is antithetical to you and other community members, regardless of the original "purpose" of a community, so be it.
- danielhooper 9y ago
  I feel you. Once again I'm finding HN's culture very reminiscent of the "techbro" epidemic that we are only pretending to be against. Can people here just not imagine what it would be like to be gay and also be working for someone making political donations to anti-gay groups? Would you not think that would feel fucking awful???
  - explainplease 9y ago
    How do you think it felt for Eich to be virtually lynched and forced out of his job? Can you not imagine that?
    - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
      Easily imagined. But he's the CEO; the spokesperson for the company. Its an entirely different bar. And he didn't get lynched; he just lost a job. Like so many gay people when they are outed. My sympathy for the guy is nearly zero.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Eich wasn't “virtually lynched”. Serious questions about his credibility in adhering to values some people expected of Mozilla were raised, creating a PR issue for Mozilla which he was evidently incapable of managing. Mm This is in no way similar to a lynching, and one must be extraordinarily sheltered to find them similar.
      - explainplease 9y ago
lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
The issue is statistically you aren't a fantastic coder. At least not so much so that any organization can't find an equavalent person who isn't on the wrong side of history. The paradox comes from the fact most people (and it seems even more than most in this industry) believe themselves "special" or "above average" when in reality that can't be the case. You don't get to (or at least shouldn't) "buy out" of the social contract just for being spectacular (and again, odds are very poor as to whether you actually have anything unique to add). This can result in tragedy, as in the case of Turning, or justice, as in the case of the laundry list of sexual predators falling from grace currently. Pretending everyone you disagree with is just "politics" ignores the fact that no man is an island and everything is connected. Once you realize you aren't special; the world/society doesn't owe you shit life will get a lot easier.
mschuster91 9y ago
> This, of course, continues further, with things such as Hollywood blacklisting (today) Conservatives Hollywood does not blacklist "conservatives". Hollywood (finally) blacklists people who have outright abused their positions, sometimes for decades, to rape women.
wastedhours 9y ago
> This inability to separate emotions and passions from cooperating on a shared focus with others, of differing emotions and passions, but equal interest in the shared focus (community) is deeply damaging. However, I see people's personalities informing how they behave in their occupation all day, every day. The notion you can subconsciously remove all of your biases before undertaking a project is, surely, inherently flawed? We also deal with associations - the body of your work will be judged based on its context. Its context comes from who you are, what you believe, and your values (both work and personal based). Of course an artists' work will be looked at differently if they're a UFO believer or not. Of course people will question whether someone championing an inclusive organisation can really not support gay marriage. Of course people will look at the works of Roman Polanski through a different lens because of allegations. It's not enforced "political correctness" it's default behaviour of humans to make these links, correct or not. Personally, I'm tired of the "leave politics to your political circles" response - politics has an impact on your worldview and thus influences your work. I'm not claiming everyone should hold the same views, but the expectation that people with diametrically opposed outlooks on the world should "just get along" for the sake of a project seems absurd to me. It's why most companies have values, and is pretty much the only non-BS use of "company culture".
- philwelch 9y ago
  So I’m assuming you’re comfortable with Hollywood blacklisting communist screenwriters?
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  >...but the expectation that people with diametrically opposed outlooks on the world should "just get along" for the sake of a project seems absurd to me. It's why most companies have values, and is pretty much the only non-BS use of "company culture". Replace 'outlooks' with 'skin color' and you can see why some people think that people should, in fact, "just get along".
  - wastedhours 9y ago
    My point wasn't that they shouldn't work together, but that just expecting that person, in your example, a closet racist, would lay that at the door when working with someone of another skin colour on a project seems fantastical. There will always be friction between people based on their views - expecting everyone in a project to only be giving one part of themselves (only the bit relevant to the project) is ridiculous. I guess a roundabout way of saying you need to take people as the wholes that they are, not just cherry pick the parts you like and expect the rest to have no impact.
appearsonline 9y ago
I find it funny how you go from >This whole question really stems from a sad and pervasive tendency for 'intelligent' people to overestimate their general expertise to >Within a community, individuals should only be judged based on their contributions and value within that community. and then justify that with >Everyone is not expected to be right, or agreeable, about everything, with everyone else. Aiming for this is pointless. I'm not sure you agree with yourself.
- cs1717p 9y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. Can you clarify what you're trying to get at here?
  - lucisferre 9y ago
    I think basically he is saying there is a bit of a dichotomy in stating that communities overestimate their abilities to apply value judgements and then at the same time state that they should only judge people based on their contributions and value to that community. As much as you might like, you can't really separate some specific technical ideal of "value" or "contribution" from a person's actions on the whole. People are people, and communities are collections of people with human interactions and interpersonal relationships. I'll also add that the false equivalence between excluding Allan Turning because he was gay vs. excluding people who express homophobic attitudes because they want to exclude people who are gay is just another way of stating "in order to embrace tolerance we must be tolerant of intolerance". Can we all finally accept that for the fallacy that it is?
    - cs1717p 9y ago
      Within a given group value is reasonably correlated to expertise. As much as I wouldn't give any time to sociologists valuing Alan Turings genius within mathematics, computer science, etc., I'd have equally little time for mathematicians judging his sexuality.
ManlyBread 9y ago
I agree wholeheartedly. Code has no gender or race.
ebbv 9y ago
I am so tired of people bringing up the Brendan Eich thing as if it was unfair. Let's be clear; he wanted to deny civil rights to LGBT folks. That's not ok for a CEO of a large organization. It's not like he was ousted for wanting to abolish the estate tax.
- haltingthoughts 9y ago
  He monetarily donated to support a position that half of America supported. One simply can't expect demand that level of moral purity in a free society.
  - explainplease 9y ago
    Not only that, but a position that was ratified in a referendum by Californians.
- bobthechef 9y ago
  What rights? I'm serious. It's not a mantra. It's a very radical claim, to say the least, that gay marriage is a right. I have yet to see an argument for its recognition as bona fide marriage.
coward00001 9y ago
> Within a community, individuals should only be judged based on their contributions and value within that community. I would add that for contributions outside of the community, they should be judged if they relate to that community. For instance, if a a security expert, goes out to conferences telling people to use MFA, but privately tells people not to use it because it is "too complicated" that person would rightly be judged by the community. (Note: I mean they regularly make that reccomendation privately, not a one-off because they don't want to tell their grandparent to use MFA). > The Mozilla CEO fired for his personal donation in opposition to gay marriage. (Again, completely irrelevant to his relationship with the Mozilla project). This is complicated for roles like CEO, they don't have a specific _technical_ role. Their role is the define the vision and direction of the company. I believe that part of the CEO job to define the values and mores for the organization, if this is wrong, let me know as that is kind of fundamental to my point. In that case, wouldn't it be right that that a CEO is fired for their values? Their values and what they want is the reason a CEO was hired at an organization. If the CEO's personal values do not match the values for the organization, it's a bad fit and they should part ways.
jakobegger 9y ago
If we are talking about an individual contributor, who only contributes code, who doesn‘t talk to press or customers, then I agree, their political beliefs shouldn‘t get them fired. But if someone represents an organisation, whether internally or externally, their political beliefs are relevant; their actions are reflected as actions of the company. Humans don‘t differentiate between personal and official life as much as you think they should, so unfortunately companies and organisations can‘t ignore what their representatives do in their spare time.

pjc50 9y ago

> deeply opposed to gay marriage, but a fantastic coder, that should not affect my standing within a community that is entirely code focused Do you think someone can really work effectively with their gay married co-contributors in this case? Being inclusive is great, but you have to recognise that including certain people drives others away from the project.

cs1717p 9y ago
Can a vegan work with someone with a non restricted diet? Can an atheist work with a muslim? In either case, the answer is the same: if the individuals behave professionally, yes. If the married gay couple are the ones freaking out at work about my hiring someone who posted against gay marriage on his blog two years ago, they are behaving unprofessionally and should be let go. If it is the anti-gay marriage advocate who is making snide comments about his colleagues at work (or, in the context of a non work environment, in a shared community forum), then it is he who should be excluded.
- Fishkins 9y ago
  Your examples aren't analogous. An analogous examples is: Can a Muslim person work with someone who believes the practice of religion should be outlawed and is working to make that happen?
  - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
    Can an atheist work with people that believe that they will be, justifiably, tortured for eternity?
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      Again, not the same thing. As far as the atheist is concerned, that belief is ridiculous. You're conflating belief with action. A better example would be an atheist working with someone trying to impose religious law.
      - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
        It seems like you're analyzing all of these situations assuming that one side is correct. If you already know everything then obviously you're going to be a benevolent dictator. There's no obvious delineation between belief and action and a the gist of what I was replying to was along the lines of 'can people work with each other even tho they have strong and significant differences in their beliefs or opinions'. There's no way to even know a person's beliefs without some action on their part. Take Brendan Eich – he donated to a group that was engaging in 'speech'. Are you claiming that all 'speech' is action? So how exactly is someone stating that they're a Muslim not an action in the same way? Are you saying it would be fine if Eich believed that gay marriage should remain illegal as long as he never expressed that belief in any way to anyone?

yttrium 9y ago

What a ridiculous idea. If you are deeply opposed to gay marriage, the only way that becomes an issue is if it bleeds over into your work. This sort of bigotry becomes a problem because people who are deeply opposed to gay marriage can't shut up about it or stop themselves from trying to apply their 'values' to others who didn't ask for it. This inability to separate emotions and passions from cooperating on a shared focus with others, of differing emotions and passions, but equal interest in the shared focus (community) is deeply damaging. This is equally nonsense. Being alive and being a functional member of society means realizing that there are passions and emotions that do not belong in any work environment. Being intolerant of gay people is one of them.

cs1717p 9y ago
No, displaying those passions or emotions does not belong in any work environment. One should be able to hold whatever views they like, and even share them with others in other communities without it affecting their work life, or status in a community without a direct interest in the controversial topic in question.
- yttrium 9y ago
  You should not be able to hold whatever views you like and participate in the community. There is no form of bigotry that belongs in software. The problem is not that these are just controversial topics - They're beliefs and actions that directly infringe on others ability to lead their best and healthy life. Tolerating hatred by disguising it as 'diversity of thought' is just a way of masking and shielding people who need to be brought into reality. You cannot be an moral participant in our profession while believing that others lifestyles don't belong.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    Members of a community should be allowed to hate each other, so long as they can leave each other alone. Worst case, they might have to be separated, with other community members acting as intermediaries. It is simply not practical to exclude a community member whenever they have a passionate disagreement with someone else, even if that topic is highly relevant to the community, because every two people are going to find something they disagree about. Part of being a mature person is being able to work together with someone you'd rather not interact with, because you realize that in that moment, your interests are partially aligned.

SolaceQuantum 9y ago

I think an issue is that by including some people you are by necessity working to make other groups unwelcome: the choice to be apolitical is a political choice.

cs1717p 9y ago
No, the only people you are making unwelcome are either: 1) those who don't know the time and place for their non community relevant outbursts ('meat is murder', 'homosexuality is a sin' are both irrelevant to 99% of tech or other industry community/work discussions) -- leave that for your vegan blog, or your church group. 2) those who are unable to behave courteously in the presence of someone they know holds differing views in some area they are passionate about. Just because I have read Jennys vegan blog, and know and disagree with her 'meat is murder' sentiment doesn't mean I can't work effectively with her. People need to be able to separate their general leanings and passions from their commitments to a job or other community.
- SolaceQuantum 9y ago
  Being a minority is not a general leaning or a passion. Knowing your superior wants you dead(white supremacists) or psychologically tortured(conversion therapy) or inherently doesn't believe in your competence(sexism, racism, what have you) is not something one just shrugs off. Choosing to to be apolitical is a political stance. It would be nice if we could magically divorce people's work from their stance, but their stance will affect how they treat their peers and juniors- this is how patterns of oppression become systems. If a person has beliefs that women are inherently less capable of work, they will be unlikely to volunteer women for promotions or even see their women coworkers as having performed the work done. If a person has beliefs that black people are more violent or thuggish, they are unlikely to view that black coworker asserting that a technology requirement is utterly stupid in the same light as a white coworker asserting the same. I should emphasize these are not conscious, malicious behaviors. We are taught things about our peers and these teachings change our views on the context of the work of our peers. People rarely consciously, maliciously try to prevent the advancement of a disenfranchised group. Instead, their beliefs of that group prevent them from seeing that a member of the group deserves advancement. People do not differentiate from the contexts of their pervasive views on how they view every other person around them. They do not cease being sexist because their workplace claims to be apolitical. It merely means they no longer have repercussions within their workplace for their beliefs, regardless of the countless absolutely unprovable ways these beliefs bleed into work.

ChrisSD 9y ago

> The Mozilla CEO fired for his personal donation in opposition to gay marriage. (Again, completely irrelevant to his relationship with the Mozilla project). He was fired as CEO, not as CTO or any other technical position. The CEO is meant to represent the organisation. Denying rights to individuals goes against Mozilla's ethos and detracts from its campaign goals. Put simply, if the CEO isn't supported by their org then they are an ineffective CEO.

dsacco 9y ago
> The CEO is meant to represent the organisation. Denying rights to individuals goes against Mozilla's ethos and detracts from its campaign goals. This implies Mozilla is intrinsically a political organization, because that’s an explicit stance on a political topic. I can buy your argument here about a CEO’s personal views being incompatible with their position, but it means we need to accept that the reason for that incompatibility is the organization must have political opinions. Does Mozilla describe itself as a political organization anywhere? I can’t immediately find a statement of its principles/values.
- rmc 9y ago
  > This implies Mozilla is intrinsically a political organization ... Does Mozilla describe itself as a political organization anywhere? I can’t immediately find a statement of its principles/values. Basically yes. Look at the "Mozilla Manifesto" ( https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ ), some of which are quite political: > 2. The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible. > 4. Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional. > 9. Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial profit and public benefit is critical.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- icebraining 9y ago

xwvvvvwx 9y ago

The Mozilla CEO fired for his personal donation in opposition to gay marriage. (Again, completely irrelevant to his relationship with the Mozilla project). Probably quite relevant to his position as CEO of an organisation that employs (and would like to hire) LGBT people.

cs1717p 9y ago
No more relevant than a CEO of a company that hires people of all diets being a passionate vegan who believes eating meat is immoral. As long as his personal views don't impact his professional behaviour, the two are not connected.
- xwvvvvwx 9y ago
  Brendan Eich took active steps to deny fundamental rights to gay / queer people.
  - cs1717p 9y ago
    By which you mean he made a campaign donation.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    You might believe he did that. Brendan Eich likely doesn’t believe that, or he doesn’t believe those specific rights are fundamental, or he has a different interpretation of those rights. When you frame his behavior the way you just did, you immediately position your perspective as right and the other perspective as wrong, but the parent’s point is that this isn’t relevant either way. His behavior was not expressed in the workplace, and he was not pushing a violent agenda. He doesn’t need to be correct in all of his personal views, he just needs to be capable of working with people of differing lifestyles, and he needs to segregate his own beliefs from the workplace.
  - bigleagueposter 9y ago
    Radical vegan want to deny the fundamental right of eating meat.

gadders 9y ago

I would modify your statement slightly: >>If I am deeply opposed <<a particular cause or ideology>> [but don't let it affect with how I interact with people in my role], but a fantastic coder, that should not affect my standing within a community that is entirely code focused.

rmc 9y ago

> The Mozilla CEO fired for his personal donation in opposition to gay marriage. He wasn't fired, he stepped down.

wilde 9y ago

Do executives get to have private views? It’s unfortunate, but the media seems to love using personal actions by executives as representative of the company they work for. So in Eich’s case I think Mozilla had a legitimate concern that his personal views would be perceived as the company’s stance.

naner 9y ago

So you're saying the solution is simple, everyone just needs to change their behavior?

wolfgke 9y ago
> So you're saying the solution is simple, everyone just needs to change their behavior? I think his argument is: Everybody should do their work that is the purpose of the community. This is why they are member of the community.

menacingly 9y ago

The Brendan Eich situation is really interesting. I've personally cited it as a gross overreach into his personal life. But it has been really fruitful to play out scenarios with it and explore my own ethics system, perhaps exposing some gaps. I personally tend to break conservatively in my views, but I would be equally outraged if a liberal were fired for supporting, say, communist revolution. I certainly understand why people who hold certain views would want that person fired, but I have no problem separating that from their work. I wouldn't want them running my country, but Mozilla is fine. I ultimately arrived at the outcome that in order to be consistent, I don't think it's OK for any _position_ someone takes to be considered for work performance. Actions, sure, but a position must have absolute freedom. So, if my CEO were to consider people who vote for republicans subhuman (not an entirely unlikely scenario today), but otherwise conducted themselves fairly, I'd be OK with it. So, did Eich take a position, or an action? Are you really allowed to have a position if you aren't allowed to support it? I'll say action, despite my bias urging me to say position. Was this action taken to support his desire to preserve something, or to deny someone else of something? If you're one of the people impacted by this action, does it matter? These questions make it easy to see the tough position Mozilla was in. I'm not sure what conclusion I'd have reached in their shoes, despite my from-the-hip decision that he did nothing wrong.

Toboe 9y ago
>So, if my CEO were to consider people who vote for republicans subhuman (not an entirely unlikely scenario today), but otherwise conducted themselves fairly, I'd be OK with it. So, lets pretend you work for Mozilla, you like the mission statement* and seriously believe in it/that your work is helping that cause. You also think it is a relevant part of your branding. You really wouldn't have a problem with your CEO saying repub voters are subhuman? No clash between "open and accessible to all" and "subhuman"? You wouldn't be upset at that violation of the creed/mission statement? You wouldn't think it to be harmful to your companies branding? (And therefore to your company) You wouldn't think it harmful to the "team spirit"/motivation? I find that surprising, to be honest. ("Reason to fire" questions aside) * "Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all. An Internet that truly puts people first, where individuals can shape their own experience and are empowered, safe and independent."[1] [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/

SomeHacker44 9y ago

The post by cs1717p seems somewhat reasonable on the surface but causes a massive visceral backlash in my gut as I read it. So, while I haven't given it enough thought to figure out why, I vehemently disagree. I disagree about the Mozilla CEO comment specifically. If something is antithetical to you and other community members, regardless of the original "purpose" of a community, so be it.

danielhooper 9y ago
I feel you. Once again I'm finding HN's culture very reminiscent of the "techbro" epidemic that we are only pretending to be against. Can people here just not imagine what it would be like to be gay and also be working for someone making political donations to anti-gay groups? Would you not think that would feel fucking awful???
- explainplease 9y ago
  How do you think it felt for Eich to be virtually lynched and forced out of his job? Can you not imagine that?
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    Easily imagined. But he's the CEO; the spokesperson for the company. Its an entirely different bar. And he didn't get lynched; he just lost a job. Like so many gay people when they are outed. My sympathy for the guy is nearly zero.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Eich wasn't “virtually lynched”. Serious questions about his credibility in adhering to values some people expected of Mozilla were raised, creating a PR issue for Mozilla which he was evidently incapable of managing. Mm This is in no way similar to a lynching, and one must be extraordinarily sheltered to find them similar.
    - explainplease 9y ago

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago

The issue is statistically you aren't a fantastic coder. At least not so much so that any organization can't find an equavalent person who isn't on the wrong side of history. The paradox comes from the fact most people (and it seems even more than most in this industry) believe themselves "special" or "above average" when in reality that can't be the case. You don't get to (or at least shouldn't) "buy out" of the social contract just for being spectacular (and again, odds are very poor as to whether you actually have anything unique to add). This can result in tragedy, as in the case of Turning, or justice, as in the case of the laundry list of sexual predators falling from grace currently. Pretending everyone you disagree with is just "politics" ignores the fact that no man is an island and everything is connected. Once you realize you aren't special; the world/society doesn't owe you shit life will get a lot easier.

mschuster91 9y ago

> This, of course, continues further, with things such as Hollywood blacklisting (today) Conservatives Hollywood does not blacklist "conservatives". Hollywood (finally) blacklists people who have outright abused their positions, sometimes for decades, to rape women.

wastedhours 9y ago

> This inability to separate emotions and passions from cooperating on a shared focus with others, of differing emotions and passions, but equal interest in the shared focus (community) is deeply damaging. However, I see people's personalities informing how they behave in their occupation all day, every day. The notion you can subconsciously remove all of your biases before undertaking a project is, surely, inherently flawed? We also deal with associations - the body of your work will be judged based on its context. Its context comes from who you are, what you believe, and your values (both work and personal based). Of course an artists' work will be looked at differently if they're a UFO believer or not. Of course people will question whether someone championing an inclusive organisation can really not support gay marriage. Of course people will look at the works of Roman Polanski through a different lens because of allegations. It's not enforced "political correctness" it's default behaviour of humans to make these links, correct or not. Personally, I'm tired of the "leave politics to your political circles" response - politics has an impact on your worldview and thus influences your work. I'm not claiming everyone should hold the same views, but the expectation that people with diametrically opposed outlooks on the world should "just get along" for the sake of a project seems absurd to me. It's why most companies have values, and is pretty much the only non-BS use of "company culture".

philwelch 9y ago
So I’m assuming you’re comfortable with Hollywood blacklisting communist screenwriters?
creaghpatr 9y ago
>...but the expectation that people with diametrically opposed outlooks on the world should "just get along" for the sake of a project seems absurd to me. It's why most companies have values, and is pretty much the only non-BS use of "company culture". Replace 'outlooks' with 'skin color' and you can see why some people think that people should, in fact, "just get along".
- wastedhours 9y ago
  My point wasn't that they shouldn't work together, but that just expecting that person, in your example, a closet racist, would lay that at the door when working with someone of another skin colour on a project seems fantastical. There will always be friction between people based on their views - expecting everyone in a project to only be giving one part of themselves (only the bit relevant to the project) is ridiculous. I guess a roundabout way of saying you need to take people as the wholes that they are, not just cherry pick the parts you like and expect the rest to have no impact.

appearsonline 9y ago

I find it funny how you go from >This whole question really stems from a sad and pervasive tendency for 'intelligent' people to overestimate their general expertise to >Within a community, individuals should only be judged based on their contributions and value within that community. and then justify that with >Everyone is not expected to be right, or agreeable, about everything, with everyone else. Aiming for this is pointless. I'm not sure you agree with yourself.

cs1717p 9y ago
I'm not sure what your point is. Can you clarify what you're trying to get at here?
- lucisferre 9y ago
  I think basically he is saying there is a bit of a dichotomy in stating that communities overestimate their abilities to apply value judgements and then at the same time state that they should only judge people based on their contributions and value to that community. As much as you might like, you can't really separate some specific technical ideal of "value" or "contribution" from a person's actions on the whole. People are people, and communities are collections of people with human interactions and interpersonal relationships. I'll also add that the false equivalence between excluding Allan Turning because he was gay vs. excluding people who express homophobic attitudes because they want to exclude people who are gay is just another way of stating "in order to embrace tolerance we must be tolerant of intolerance". Can we all finally accept that for the fallacy that it is?
  - cs1717p 9y ago
    Within a given group value is reasonably correlated to expertise. As much as I wouldn't give any time to sociologists valuing Alan Turings genius within mathematics, computer science, etc., I'd have equally little time for mathematicians judging his sexuality.

ManlyBread 9y ago

I agree wholeheartedly. Code has no gender or race.

ebbv 9y ago

I am so tired of people bringing up the Brendan Eich thing as if it was unfair. Let's be clear; he wanted to deny civil rights to LGBT folks. That's not ok for a CEO of a large organization. It's not like he was ousted for wanting to abolish the estate tax.

haltingthoughts 9y ago
He monetarily donated to support a position that half of America supported. One simply can't expect demand that level of moral purity in a free society.
- explainplease 9y ago
  Not only that, but a position that was ratified in a referendum by Californians.
bobthechef 9y ago
What rights? I'm serious. It's not a mantra. It's a very radical claim, to say the least, that gay marriage is a right. I have yet to see an argument for its recognition as bona fide marriage.

coward00001 9y ago

> Within a community, individuals should only be judged based on their contributions and value within that community. I would add that for contributions outside of the community, they should be judged if they relate to that community. For instance, if a a security expert, goes out to conferences telling people to use MFA, but privately tells people not to use it because it is "too complicated" that person would rightly be judged by the community. (Note: I mean they regularly make that reccomendation privately, not a one-off because they don't want to tell their grandparent to use MFA). > The Mozilla CEO fired for his personal donation in opposition to gay marriage. (Again, completely irrelevant to his relationship with the Mozilla project). This is complicated for roles like CEO, they don't have a specific _technical_ role. Their role is the define the vision and direction of the company. I believe that part of the CEO job to define the values and mores for the organization, if this is wrong, let me know as that is kind of fundamental to my point. In that case, wouldn't it be right that that a CEO is fired for their values? Their values and what they want is the reason a CEO was hired at an organization. If the CEO's personal values do not match the values for the organization, it's a bad fit and they should part ways.

jakobegger 9y ago

If we are talking about an individual contributor, who only contributes code, who doesn‘t talk to press or customers, then I agree, their political beliefs shouldn‘t get them fired. But if someone represents an organisation, whether internally or externally, their political beliefs are relevant; their actions are reflected as actions of the company. Humans don‘t differentiate between personal and official life as much as you think they should, so unfortunately companies and organisations can‘t ignore what their representatives do in their spare time.