11 ms·

So it's cool to have an opinion, as long as you don't make any effort to share it, discuss it, or enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from it.

So it's cool to have an opinion, as long as you don't make any effort to share it, discuss it, or enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from it. Got it. Does that apply to everyone, or only people whose opinions either are now or will some day become unpopular? If the Eich ordeal is instructive of anything, it's that culturally, we are no longer mature enough to handle any discontent and that meaningful political activity must go back underground.

KirinDave 8y ago
It applies to everyone. This idea that conservatives are uniquely penalized is a fantasy. In fact, if anything they're uniquely not penalized. The media will still interview people who voted for Trump and listen to them. Not once on any national television publication (or major news paper) that I've found have we seen, "Ask a Communist or Anarchist how they feel about all this." And most major publications refuse to acknowledge (or only periodically acknowledge) the global and constant destruction of LGBT people that's that going on across half the world, except to occasionally use it as a rhetorical club to promote their racially motivated dislike of folks with dark skin by cloaking it in the veil of islamophobia. > If the Eich ordeal is instructive of anything, it's that culturally, we are no longer mature enough to handle any discontent and that meaningful political activity must go back underground. Yeah, boy, it must have been rough for him. Forced to publicly own and defend his political decisions that created a second class of lesser citizens based on his religious preferences, using company political contributions that his employees overwhelmingly decried. If you think it's fine for him to spend money making gay people into second class citizens, then you cannot deny other citizens the right to try and make other classes of citizens second class. This is the "meaningful" political activity you just cited. It's your reaction not equally immature?
- smsm42 8y ago
  > The media will still interview people who voted for Trump and listen to them. And here we go. Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not. > "Ask a Communist or Anarchist how they feel about all this." NYT just published a big article about DSA (of which many rank members readily admit they're actually communists but avoid the word for tactical reasons). DSA candidates and members are regularly interviewed. Here's CNN talking about antifa, with quotes: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.... A very sympathetic profile, with the only opponent CNN chose to present being an actual Nazi (they couldn't apparently find anybody else willing to say "physically assaulting people of another ideology may be bad"). > the global and constant destruction of LGBT people that's that going on across half the world Indeed, there are widespread violations of human rights - including and in particularly egregious forms concerning LGBT people - in many countries. And the fact that the mainstream Western press ignores that is a travesty. However, I suspect the reason it is ignoring it is not what you seem to be implying - that they are closet conservatives who ignore these for reasons of their bigotry - but because the press does not want to appear non-PC by criticizing non-western countries and thus opening themselves to (baseless, but still effective) accusations of racism, imperialism and colonialism. > except to occasionally use it as a rhetorical club to promote their racially motivated dislike of folks with dark skin by cloaking it in the veil of islamophobia And here you go. How you can reasonably discuss human rights in country X if when you try to do it you're told "yeah, you're just criticizing them because you hate people with dark skin!"? That derails the discussion immediately and you spend you time slot arguing (unsuccessfully) that you're not a racist. Who needs the trouble? > Yeah, boy, it must have been rough for him And here we go again - we are all for basic civility and inclusion, and hearing everybody. Except for those who disagree with us - you seem to feel free to completely dismiss and devalue their experience, and there's no problem with silencing and excluding them, with being condescending and dismissive over their experience. > Forced to publicly own and defend his political decisions Eich wasn't "forced to defend" his decisions - he never got a chance to defend anything, he was just silenced and hounded out. There was no any defense, there was an attack and then Eich was out. That's how it works - accusation is a sentence (and it's always "guilty and unpersoned"), and that's the whole due process you get. > using company political contributions Eich used his own money, didn't he? > then you cannot deny other citizens the right to try and make other classes of citizens second class. Yes you can. This is what "basic civility" is all about. If you say "I am ready to be civil, but only if nobody ever disagrees with me and rubs me the wrong way", it's useless - anybody could sign under that, the worst criminal in the world would be nice and genial and civil if everything goes exactly as he likes. It's the conflict is where you can see if you mean it. And if you think a particular political point is too important to be civil - ok, fine, I get it - but then please stop preaching civility at the same time. Just tell us "if you agree with us, you'd be fine and if not, we'll mess you up like you won't believe it". And then don't be surprised when people on the other side find somebody who does the same - e.g. Trump - and elect him the president.
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    > And here we go. Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not. And here you go, suggesting US voters have nothing to do with the policies of those they voted for. It's not like, "Draconian literal-definition-of-genocide-camps" wast no on the guy's agenda. > NYT just published a big article about DSA (of which many rank members readily admit they're actually communists but avoid the word for tactical reasons). I'm sorry, but are we doing a thing where we asymmetrically pick hypotheticals in a political party that would be considered "centrist" via their policy positions in any other developed nation in the world outside of Russia? Okay, well then the Republican party is strictly fascist because there are fascists there, that's why they brought a nazi? Not very fair, is it? But nice try. > that they are closet conservatives who ignore these for reasons of their bigotry - but because the press does not want to appear non-PC by criticizing non-western countries and thus opening themselves to (baseless, but still effective) accusations of racism, imperialism and colonialism. Most of the press is reporting these human rights abuses. "Oh how colonial of you," is a hyper-conservative caricature meant to quash discourse. But what American conservatives refuse to own is the human rights abuses that occur in their own country. That it is legal to traffick and marry children if you fill out a specific religious declaration form for them in many states, for example. Or if you do, they simply deny affiliation while continuing to defend those rights under the first amendment axioms. > Except for those who disagree with us - you seem to feel free to completely dismiss and devalue their experience, and there's no problem with silencing and excluding them, with being condescending and dismissive over their experience. Unlike you, sms42, I've actually had an extensive conversation with Eich on this website about this very topic. It's ridiculous for you to accuse me of not hearing him. My conversation here with him is a matter of public record. > Eich wasn't "forced to defend" his decisions - he never got a chance to defend anything, he was just silenced and hounded out. He did actually get plenty of chances to talk. He declined to do so. He was not silenced. Quite the contrary, he did an admirable thing shutting up and resigning, and fulfilled his fiduciary duty as the CEO with grace. In this, I tip my hat to him. The CEO has one job before all others: don't be a PR titanic. He recognized he had failed at this job and left with grace. His subsequent statements on why he supported Prop 8 suggest he hasn't really changed his opinion and he still believes LGBT+ people aren't really people, because his religious views override their rights. > If you say "I am ready to be civil, but only if nobody ever disagrees with me and rubs me the wrong way", it's useless Ah yes, that facile and tired metaphor: "Treating you as less than human is just your feels, snowflake. Why you gotta be so angry (about my systematic removal and denial of your rights)." > It's the conflict is where you can see if you mean it. And if you think a particular political point is too important to be civil - ok, fine, I get it - but then please stop preaching civility at the same time. Quite the contrary, I'm not saying anyone should be civil. I think they should leave the project. They're clearly not wanted as they are. > And then don't be surprised when people on the other side find somebody who does the same - e.g. Trump - and elect him the president. There's a world of difference you will never acknowledge between, "Now you have to answer to your peers for your decision, and it may cost you slightly if you won't at least apologize" and "Now I am going to set the resources of the most powerful nation in human history against you, dehumanizing you and systematically terrorizing you." The fact that you can't see the magnitudes of difference says one of two things to me. Option 1, You truly believe this, and simply don't (or can't) have any conception of how bad the current administration is for some people. Option 2, you do know and this entire thread about civility is performative. Feel free to answer the implied question, or not. 𐑲 𐑢𐑴𐑯𐑑 𐑳𐑯𐑛𐑻𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑯𐑛 𐑿 𐑨𐑯𐑰𐑥𐑹 𐑞𐑩𐑯 𐑿𐑤 𐑳𐑯𐑛𐑻𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑯𐑛 𐑞𐑦𐑟.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> So it's cool to have an opinion, as long as you don't make any effort to share it, discuss it, or enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from it. You can do that, too. OTOH, If you do that in a way which is offensive to the ideals of a large group, you may not like the consequences when they, to, attempt to “enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from” their ideals, especially if you are seeking a job with a high profile public role in an organization which survives on the political support of a group which overlaps significantly with the most offended group by your action. Mozilla Corp isn't a relatigely apolitical business entity, it is, while itself a for-profit corporation, a subsidiary of an ideological nonprofit.
- BrendanEich 8y ago
  I am a mozilla.org cofounder (full list: https://twitter.com/jwz/status/981028500353069056?s=21 https://twitter.com/jwz/status/981028500353069056?s=21 - note no one currently at Mozilla). We were not “ideological” in the standard political-religion sense (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology). If you are arguing that the Mozilla Foundation, swimming in NFP/NGO seas, has become ideological since founding and spinout from AOL, I agree. But it was not always or necessarily so. FYI the only “Mozilla” people who spoke against me while I was CEO did not work for me; they were in the Foundation.

KirinDave 8y ago

It applies to everyone. This idea that conservatives are uniquely penalized is a fantasy. In fact, if anything they're uniquely not penalized. The media will still interview people who voted for Trump and listen to them. Not once on any national television publication (or major news paper) that I've found have we seen, "Ask a Communist or Anarchist how they feel about all this." And most major publications refuse to acknowledge (or only periodically acknowledge) the global and constant destruction of LGBT people that's that going on across half the world, except to occasionally use it as a rhetorical club to promote their racially motivated dislike of folks with dark skin by cloaking it in the veil of islamophobia. > If the Eich ordeal is instructive of anything, it's that culturally, we are no longer mature enough to handle any discontent and that meaningful political activity must go back underground. Yeah, boy, it must have been rough for him. Forced to publicly own and defend his political decisions that created a second class of lesser citizens based on his religious preferences, using company political contributions that his employees overwhelmingly decried. If you think it's fine for him to spend money making gay people into second class citizens, then you cannot deny other citizens the right to try and make other classes of citizens second class. This is the "meaningful" political activity you just cited. It's your reaction not equally immature?

smsm42 8y ago
> The media will still interview people who voted for Trump and listen to them. And here we go. Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not. > "Ask a Communist or Anarchist how they feel about all this." NYT just published a big article about DSA (of which many rank members readily admit they're actually communists but avoid the word for tactical reasons). DSA candidates and members are regularly interviewed. Here's CNN talking about antifa, with quotes: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.... A very sympathetic profile, with the only opponent CNN chose to present being an actual Nazi (they couldn't apparently find anybody else willing to say "physically assaulting people of another ideology may be bad"). > the global and constant destruction of LGBT people that's that going on across half the world Indeed, there are widespread violations of human rights - including and in particularly egregious forms concerning LGBT people - in many countries. And the fact that the mainstream Western press ignores that is a travesty. However, I suspect the reason it is ignoring it is not what you seem to be implying - that they are closet conservatives who ignore these for reasons of their bigotry - but because the press does not want to appear non-PC by criticizing non-western countries and thus opening themselves to (baseless, but still effective) accusations of racism, imperialism and colonialism. > except to occasionally use it as a rhetorical club to promote their racially motivated dislike of folks with dark skin by cloaking it in the veil of islamophobia And here you go. How you can reasonably discuss human rights in country X if when you try to do it you're told "yeah, you're just criticizing them because you hate people with dark skin!"? That derails the discussion immediately and you spend you time slot arguing (unsuccessfully) that you're not a racist. Who needs the trouble? > Yeah, boy, it must have been rough for him And here we go again - we are all for basic civility and inclusion, and hearing everybody. Except for those who disagree with us - you seem to feel free to completely dismiss and devalue their experience, and there's no problem with silencing and excluding them, with being condescending and dismissive over their experience. > Forced to publicly own and defend his political decisions Eich wasn't "forced to defend" his decisions - he never got a chance to defend anything, he was just silenced and hounded out. There was no any defense, there was an attack and then Eich was out. That's how it works - accusation is a sentence (and it's always "guilty and unpersoned"), and that's the whole due process you get. > using company political contributions Eich used his own money, didn't he? > then you cannot deny other citizens the right to try and make other classes of citizens second class. Yes you can. This is what "basic civility" is all about. If you say "I am ready to be civil, but only if nobody ever disagrees with me and rubs me the wrong way", it's useless - anybody could sign under that, the worst criminal in the world would be nice and genial and civil if everything goes exactly as he likes. It's the conflict is where you can see if you mean it. And if you think a particular political point is too important to be civil - ok, fine, I get it - but then please stop preaching civility at the same time. Just tell us "if you agree with us, you'd be fine and if not, we'll mess you up like you won't believe it". And then don't be surprised when people on the other side find somebody who does the same - e.g. Trump - and elect him the president.
- KirinDave 8y ago
  > And here we go. Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not. And here you go, suggesting US voters have nothing to do with the policies of those they voted for. It's not like, "Draconian literal-definition-of-genocide-camps" wast no on the guy's agenda. > NYT just published a big article about DSA (of which many rank members readily admit they're actually communists but avoid the word for tactical reasons). I'm sorry, but are we doing a thing where we asymmetrically pick hypotheticals in a political party that would be considered "centrist" via their policy positions in any other developed nation in the world outside of Russia? Okay, well then the Republican party is strictly fascist because there are fascists there, that's why they brought a nazi? Not very fair, is it? But nice try. > that they are closet conservatives who ignore these for reasons of their bigotry - but because the press does not want to appear non-PC by criticizing non-western countries and thus opening themselves to (baseless, but still effective) accusations of racism, imperialism and colonialism. Most of the press is reporting these human rights abuses. "Oh how colonial of you," is a hyper-conservative caricature meant to quash discourse. But what American conservatives refuse to own is the human rights abuses that occur in their own country. That it is legal to traffick and marry children if you fill out a specific religious declaration form for them in many states, for example. Or if you do, they simply deny affiliation while continuing to defend those rights under the first amendment axioms. > Except for those who disagree with us - you seem to feel free to completely dismiss and devalue their experience, and there's no problem with silencing and excluding them, with being condescending and dismissive over their experience. Unlike you, sms42, I've actually had an extensive conversation with Eich on this website about this very topic. It's ridiculous for you to accuse me of not hearing him. My conversation here with him is a matter of public record. > Eich wasn't "forced to defend" his decisions - he never got a chance to defend anything, he was just silenced and hounded out. He did actually get plenty of chances to talk. He declined to do so. He was not silenced. Quite the contrary, he did an admirable thing shutting up and resigning, and fulfilled his fiduciary duty as the CEO with grace. In this, I tip my hat to him. The CEO has one job before all others: don't be a PR titanic. He recognized he had failed at this job and left with grace. His subsequent statements on why he supported Prop 8 suggest he hasn't really changed his opinion and he still believes LGBT+ people aren't really people, because his religious views override their rights. > If you say "I am ready to be civil, but only if nobody ever disagrees with me and rubs me the wrong way", it's useless Ah yes, that facile and tired metaphor: "Treating you as less than human is just your feels, snowflake. Why you gotta be so angry (about my systematic removal and denial of your rights)." > It's the conflict is where you can see if you mean it. And if you think a particular political point is too important to be civil - ok, fine, I get it - but then please stop preaching civility at the same time. Quite the contrary, I'm not saying anyone should be civil. I think they should leave the project. They're clearly not wanted as they are. > And then don't be surprised when people on the other side find somebody who does the same - e.g. Trump - and elect him the president. There's a world of difference you will never acknowledge between, "Now you have to answer to your peers for your decision, and it may cost you slightly if you won't at least apologize" and "Now I am going to set the resources of the most powerful nation in human history against you, dehumanizing you and systematically terrorizing you." The fact that you can't see the magnitudes of difference says one of two things to me. Option 1, You truly believe this, and simply don't (or can't) have any conception of how bad the current administration is for some people. Option 2, you do know and this entire thread about civility is performative. Feel free to answer the implied question, or not. 𐑲 𐑢𐑴𐑯𐑑 𐑳𐑯𐑛𐑻𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑯𐑛 𐑿 𐑨𐑯𐑰𐑥𐑹 𐑞𐑩𐑯 𐑿𐑤 𐑳𐑯𐑛𐑻𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑯𐑛 𐑞𐑦𐑟.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> So it's cool to have an opinion, as long as you don't make any effort to share it, discuss it, or enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from it. You can do that, too. OTOH, If you do that in a way which is offensive to the ideals of a large group, you may not like the consequences when they, to, attempt to “enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from” their ideals, especially if you are seeking a job with a high profile public role in an organization which survives on the political support of a group which overlaps significantly with the most offended group by your action. Mozilla Corp isn't a relatigely apolitical business entity, it is, while itself a for-profit corporation, a subsidiary of an ideological nonprofit.

BrendanEich 8y ago
I am a mozilla.org cofounder (full list: https://twitter.com/jwz/status/981028500353069056?s=21 https://twitter.com/jwz/status/981028500353069056?s=21 - note no one currently at Mozilla). We were not “ideological” in the standard political-religion sense (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology). If you are arguing that the Mozilla Foundation, swimming in NFP/NGO seas, has become ideological since founding and spinout from AOL, I agree. But it was not always or necessarily so. FYI the only “Mozilla” people who spoke against me while I was CEO did not work for me; they were in the Foundation.