4 ms·

"Views" are one thing... I guess. Working to make sure your employees don't get the legal right to get married is another.

• A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  Ahh, I see now. So it is not just Views. It is the wrong kind of Views. The guy basically the kinda guy that kicks puppies and worships Hitler. And anyone who associates with him is as bad or worse for being complicit nay culpable.. And the only thing that is not asked is whether he was good at what he did. Was he good at what he did apart from being bad bad anti-homosexual?
  • wwright 7y ago
    Part of his job was to acquire and retain employees, allocate capital, and engage in public relations. Spending his personal money on fucking over other people (with no real benefit to the world), many of whom worked for or could work for him, is a bad sign about those parts of his job. (That may not be an argument for the board to fire him, of course, but it is an answer to “how good is he at his job?”)
    • A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
      Well, how is him spending his personal money anyone's business but his own? Now, you could make an argument that his sort of mob mentality is why people now skulk around behind various trusts, llcs and PACs to any kind of political work other people may dislike. To your point, I guess it really depends on how you define his set of responsibilities, which is a valid point to make. I thought of something very limited ( writing lines of code ). From that perspective.. why does it matter who he donates to and why. Is it not up to him to decide?
      • wwright 7y ago
        He was the CEO, so it was much more than coding. For a regular software engineer (ie, no direct reports) I think it’s a very different calculus. And it _is_ up to him to decide how to spend his money. But if he spends that money on things that deeply impact other people, it is more than fair for other people to care.
• oceanplexian 7y ago
  Strange, I don't remember any Mozilla employees organizing and rallying for political causes in the 1990s, and Mozilla was certainly around, if not the dominant platform at the time. Gay rights was no less of an issue then than it is today, it simply hadn't been popularized by the media and endorsed by politicians and corporations. Personally I find it abhorrent that anyone was so quick to rally against Brendan Eich. If we keep going down this path, all we'll be left with are people that change their opinions on a whim and flip flop on issues so quickly that they resemble politicians. I'd rather have a good leader I don't agree with on every issue, than a poor leader who's trying to pretend to be on the right side of whatever political stance is in-vogue.