5 ms·

Still can't believe Brendan Eich was hounded out of Mozilla.

LoveSubs 8y ago
we're only talking about pedophiles here. "right wingers" can be mistreated, it's fine. but pedophiles need to be protected for a "progressive" society webboys come and downvote me, one downvote = 1 impeachment for Drumff and 1 flag = madam president!!
- gator-io 8y ago
  I just think political differences should not cause people to fired. That could get out of control fast.
  - solipsism 8y ago
    A CEO is a special position that includes being a spokesman for a company. It's a tough job, but it's accordingly usually very well compensated. You don't do your argument any favors by acting as if there's not this qualitative difference between the head spokesman of a company and just any other employee.
    - flukus 8y ago
      Ok, what about other senior management? They are often spokesmen for the company too. What about a middle manager? Surely the argument that employees wouldn't feel comfortable with a CEO donating would apply to middle management too. It's not just because he's CEO though, separating work and home used to be a basic part of professionalism but we've lost it from all levels.
      - projektir 8y ago
        > separating work and home used to be a basic part of professionalism I think before you automatically assume this is a good thing, you may want to look into what this statement means and what it actually mapped out to historically. Because the time when this was what professionalism meant likely was also the time when certain people had to use different bathrooms. I.e., it worked, because all of the "problem" segments have already been excluded, and so nobody had to deal with it. There is no problem with being a sexist manager if no women work under you, or if your actions are not perceived as problematic. Pretty easy to keep it "professional", because the definition is already skewed in your favor.
        flukus 8y ago
        The "problem" segments still existed, they just weren't always the same as the ones we have now. Anti-semitism is one well known example that was widespread until WW2, but there were various nationality clashes, political clashes, religion (protestants vs Catholics), etc. It wasn't straight white men who all agreed about everything getting along just fine. Many of those still exist to various extents but the professional standard is to leave them at the door and acknowledge that you can work with people you don't agree with. I work with several religious people (varying religions) who think I deserve to burn in hell for all eternity for various reasons, which is quite a severe level of hatred if you think about it. Yet it doesn't impact the professional relationship. > Because the time when this was what professionalism meant likely was also the time when certain people had to use different bathrooms. This hasn't disappeared either, gender segregated toilets are still common along with disabled toilets.
        projektir 8y ago
        If anti-semitism existed, how could that relationship have been professional? You can't have it both ways. Either the relationship is professional, meaning that the associated -ism didn't exist, or that relationship was not as professional as you were imagining it. People do not arbitrarily turn off their prejudices when they enter a workplace. > I work with several religious people (varying religions) who think I deserve to burn in hell for all eternity for various reasons, which is quite a severe level of hatred if you think about it. Yet it doesn't impact the professional relationship. This only works because said religious people are too underpowered for the concreteness of their beliefs to be practical, so they don't really believe it on a significant level, and it doesn't make any difference. That relationship was certainly not professional when Christianity was at its power peak. Modern Christianity is very, very contradictory, has become so to survive, it's not really a good example. What I am saying is, if there is a significant negative belief in someone's address, that relationship cannot be professional. If a manager thinks women are below him, there is no way he can be professional in his interactions with them, it just doesn't work.
      - duxup 8y ago
        >separating work and home used to be a basic part of professionalism CEO's actions in this case supported a law that very much reached into the homes and lives of some employees, customers, etc.
  - rhapsodic 8y ago
    And it should be noted that the person the GP was smearing was not accused of pedophilia. He was hounded out of his job for supporting a ballot proposition that was ultimately passed by a majority of California voters. I tried to reply to the GP directly but couldn't because it got flagged dead before I could get the reply submitted.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    What if those "political differences" were about reinstating Jim Crow laws? Laws against non heterosexual sex? Miscegenation?
- dang 8y ago
  We've banned this account for trolling. Threads on topics like this are wretched enough already. Would you please stop creating accounts to break the site guidelines with? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
duxup 8y ago
That's where IMO things get complicated. Mozilla presumably has or would have gay employees. Meanwhile here is a guy running the company supporting a cause to limit a specific group of employee's rights to marry. That's no small thing, it's not some generic labor dispute, it's a very specific action that is specifically targeting a group of employees legal rights regarding marriage. I think there is a legit leadership problem there.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  > Meanwhile here is a guy running the company supporting a cause to limit a specific group of employee's rights to marry. Specifically, he donated $1000 to Prop 8. If you're going by that standard....literally the majority of California is ideologically unfit to lead.
  - duxup 8y ago
    Obviously the majority of California did not donate. I do think a lot of people are in fact unqualified to lead.... being CEO is a very different job.
    - DanAndersen 8y ago
      What do you think is different between donating and voting in this case? If you think it is legitimate to have a promotion ceiling for donators to a particular political side, why not voters?
      - duxup 8y ago
        I wouldn't know how he voted, perception for a CEO is kinda a big deal. Plenty of leadership type classes are out there talk about all sorts of behavior and such, .. imagine asking in one of chose classes: "Hey what if I financially supported a cause that would restrict the marriage rights of some of my employees, but not others?" What do you think they'd say about his leadership there? > If you think it is legitimate to have a promotion ceiling for donators to a particular political side, why not voters I feel like the other post you're over generalizing to the point of irrelevance.

we're only talking about pedophiles here. "right wingers" can be mistreated, it's fine. but pedophiles need to be protected for a "progressive" society webboys come and downvote me, one downvote = 1 impeachment for Drumff and 1 flag = madam president!!

gator-io 8y ago
I just think political differences should not cause people to fired. That could get out of control fast.
- solipsism 8y ago
  A CEO is a special position that includes being a spokesman for a company. It's a tough job, but it's accordingly usually very well compensated. You don't do your argument any favors by acting as if there's not this qualitative difference between the head spokesman of a company and just any other employee.
  - flukus 8y ago
    Ok, what about other senior management? They are often spokesmen for the company too. What about a middle manager? Surely the argument that employees wouldn't feel comfortable with a CEO donating would apply to middle management too. It's not just because he's CEO though, separating work and home used to be a basic part of professionalism but we've lost it from all levels.
    - projektir 8y ago
      > separating work and home used to be a basic part of professionalism I think before you automatically assume this is a good thing, you may want to look into what this statement means and what it actually mapped out to historically. Because the time when this was what professionalism meant likely was also the time when certain people had to use different bathrooms. I.e., it worked, because all of the "problem" segments have already been excluded, and so nobody had to deal with it. There is no problem with being a sexist manager if no women work under you, or if your actions are not perceived as problematic. Pretty easy to keep it "professional", because the definition is already skewed in your favor.
      - flukus 8y ago
        The "problem" segments still existed, they just weren't always the same as the ones we have now. Anti-semitism is one well known example that was widespread until WW2, but there were various nationality clashes, political clashes, religion (protestants vs Catholics), etc. It wasn't straight white men who all agreed about everything getting along just fine. Many of those still exist to various extents but the professional standard is to leave them at the door and acknowledge that you can work with people you don't agree with. I work with several religious people (varying religions) who think I deserve to burn in hell for all eternity for various reasons, which is quite a severe level of hatred if you think about it. Yet it doesn't impact the professional relationship. > Because the time when this was what professionalism meant likely was also the time when certain people had to use different bathrooms. This hasn't disappeared either, gender segregated toilets are still common along with disabled toilets.
        projektir 8y ago
        If anti-semitism existed, how could that relationship have been professional? You can't have it both ways. Either the relationship is professional, meaning that the associated -ism didn't exist, or that relationship was not as professional as you were imagining it. People do not arbitrarily turn off their prejudices when they enter a workplace. > I work with several religious people (varying religions) who think I deserve to burn in hell for all eternity for various reasons, which is quite a severe level of hatred if you think about it. Yet it doesn't impact the professional relationship. This only works because said religious people are too underpowered for the concreteness of their beliefs to be practical, so they don't really believe it on a significant level, and it doesn't make any difference. That relationship was certainly not professional when Christianity was at its power peak. Modern Christianity is very, very contradictory, has become so to survive, it's not really a good example. What I am saying is, if there is a significant negative belief in someone's address, that relationship cannot be professional. If a manager thinks women are below him, there is no way he can be professional in his interactions with them, it just doesn't work.
    - duxup 8y ago
      >separating work and home used to be a basic part of professionalism CEO's actions in this case supported a law that very much reached into the homes and lives of some employees, customers, etc.
- rhapsodic 8y ago
  And it should be noted that the person the GP was smearing was not accused of pedophilia. He was hounded out of his job for supporting a ballot proposition that was ultimately passed by a majority of California voters. I tried to reply to the GP directly but couldn't because it got flagged dead before I could get the reply submitted.
- scarface74 8y ago
  What if those "political differences" were about reinstating Jim Crow laws? Laws against non heterosexual sex? Miscegenation?
dang 8y ago
We've banned this account for trolling. Threads on topics like this are wretched enough already. Would you please stop creating accounts to break the site guidelines with? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

duxup 8y ago

That's where IMO things get complicated. Mozilla presumably has or would have gay employees. Meanwhile here is a guy running the company supporting a cause to limit a specific group of employee's rights to marry. That's no small thing, it's not some generic labor dispute, it's a very specific action that is specifically targeting a group of employees legal rights regarding marriage. I think there is a legit leadership problem there.

paulddraper 8y ago
> Meanwhile here is a guy running the company supporting a cause to limit a specific group of employee's rights to marry. Specifically, he donated $1000 to Prop 8. If you're going by that standard....literally the majority of California is ideologically unfit to lead.
- duxup 8y ago
  Obviously the majority of California did not donate. I do think a lot of people are in fact unqualified to lead.... being CEO is a very different job.
  - DanAndersen 8y ago
    What do you think is different between donating and voting in this case? If you think it is legitimate to have a promotion ceiling for donators to a particular political side, why not voters?
    - duxup 8y ago
      I wouldn't know how he voted, perception for a CEO is kinda a big deal. Plenty of leadership type classes are out there talk about all sorts of behavior and such, .. imagine asking in one of chose classes: "Hey what if I financially supported a cause that would restrict the marriage rights of some of my employees, but not others?" What do you think they'd say about his leadership there? > If you think it is legitimate to have a promotion ceiling for donators to a particular political side, why not voters I feel like the other post you're over generalizing to the point of irrelevance.