4 ms·

> It is notable that in your summary you refer to this as political fashion swings, and "unpopular" political views, and an overreaction. Would you characterize

> It is notable that in your summary you refer to this as political fashion swings, and "unpopular" political views, and an overreaction. Would you characterize the civil right movement in the same fashion? Just to answer your question explicitly: yes. If somebody had a political opinion that was popular with 40% of the population and had not brought it into the workplace, I would not support firing the person for holding that opinion, even if the opinion were, for example, that schools should be segregated by race. While I personally don't support segregation by race, I don't find firing people for political views kept outside of work to be in the long term interest of liberal societies. I find the notion of segregated but equal schools unworkable (because those with power will always ensure their schools are better) but not inherently evil. And, in some situations (e.g. gender), I do not oppose "separate but equal" schooling. While I personally attended a public school, I have several friends who attended single-sex private schools, and they turned out OK. With all this in mind, your language around "denying a human right" makes it clear that you aren't giving Eich's views a fair hearing. California had domestic partnerships for same sex couples that ensured comparable protections around spousal visitation, etc. While I also disagree with the notion of "separate but equal" for partnerships and support granting gay couples the right to marriage, international organizations (like the United Nations) do not generally consider "separate but equal" to be human rights violations. To be a human rights violation, the separation must be coupled with a disparity in treatment (as in segregated schooling in the United States), which Eich is explicitly opposed to.

pseudalopex 6y ago
California civil unions weren't equal to marriages. The US rejected separate but equal 50 years before Proposition 8.
- will4274 6y ago
  The US Supreme Court rejected separate but equal in the context of race and government provided public school for children. In 2020, it's still legal to provide separate but equal accommodations for gender - and most establishment (public or private) do so with bathrooms. And, government and private organizations provide separate but equal, and in many cases unequal, shelters for their homeless populations by gender. Filing out a different government form isn't a human rights violation - it happens all the time - people with disabilities or those above a certain age fill out a different or additional forms. On the other hand, systematically having dilapidated and unsafe buildings for schoolchildren of one race but not the other is a human rights violations. Do you see the difference?
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    California civil unions weren't just a different form. They didn't confer the same rights as marriages. The history of civil rights didn't end with Brown v. Board of Education. The Civil Rights Act and Loving v. Virginia also repudiated separate but equal. Voluntary single sex education and certain environments where women might feel vulnerable are specific exceptions. The California Supreme Court gave separate but equal for same sex unions a fair hearing in 2008 and found it was discriminatory and unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court agreed in 2015. Eich didn't apologize or even say he wouldn't do it again. He actually pointedly refused to explain his views except to say he supported civil unions.
flipgimble 6y ago
I agree that having a political opinion is not a basis for firing anyone, and likely illegal. However as a manager, and a CEO of a company, your biases and prejudices regarding the rights of some of your employees are more likely to affect your performance and hurt the company. But we are talking about Mozilla specifically, which states in their manifesto: "We are committed to an internet that includes all the peoples of the earth — where a person’s demographic characteristics do not determine their online access, opportunities, or quality of experience." If we put aside any value judgement on that statement, I can see how a CEO publicly supporting exclusion can raise concerns about their performance with respect to the company's mission. Even so, Eich wasn't fired, he resigned and moved on. Far more interesting to me is that 6 years later, you and others on this forums go to such effort to justify why any problem with the company is a consequence of that resignation. Eich doesn't need your support. I'm curious as to what drives the justifications and the splitting hairs as to what is the approved meaning of human rights as defined by international organizations. The language about denying human rights should have been the least controversial part of what I wrote.
- will4274 6y ago
  > Far more interesting to me is that 6 years later, you and others on this forums go to such effort to justify why any problem with the company is a consequence of that resignation. Eich doesn't need your support. I'm curious as to what drives the justifications and the splitting hairs as to what is the approved meaning of human rights as defined by international organizations. I think you may be observing something about yourself and attributing to others. Mozilla's problems aren't a consequence of Eich's resignation. Mozilla has several problems - I described three of them that are particularly prominent to me - 1) Debian / power users 2) wikimedia executives 3) and social justice amok. Eich resignation was one of two symptoms I gave as examples of the third problem. I could also have given this blog post as an example, as it bizarrely tries to describe a layoff in the context of fighting racism (were the laid off employees racist?). I find it interesting that you ignored all the other problems I mentioned and the other symptoms of the same problem and focused in on attacking Eich to such an extent.

pseudalopex 6y ago

California civil unions weren't equal to marriages. The US rejected separate but equal 50 years before Proposition 8.

will4274 6y ago
The US Supreme Court rejected separate but equal in the context of race and government provided public school for children. In 2020, it's still legal to provide separate but equal accommodations for gender - and most establishment (public or private) do so with bathrooms. And, government and private organizations provide separate but equal, and in many cases unequal, shelters for their homeless populations by gender. Filing out a different government form isn't a human rights violation - it happens all the time - people with disabilities or those above a certain age fill out a different or additional forms. On the other hand, systematically having dilapidated and unsafe buildings for schoolchildren of one race but not the other is a human rights violations. Do you see the difference?
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  California civil unions weren't just a different form. They didn't confer the same rights as marriages. The history of civil rights didn't end with Brown v. Board of Education. The Civil Rights Act and Loving v. Virginia also repudiated separate but equal. Voluntary single sex education and certain environments where women might feel vulnerable are specific exceptions. The California Supreme Court gave separate but equal for same sex unions a fair hearing in 2008 and found it was discriminatory and unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court agreed in 2015. Eich didn't apologize or even say he wouldn't do it again. He actually pointedly refused to explain his views except to say he supported civil unions.

flipgimble 6y ago

I agree that having a political opinion is not a basis for firing anyone, and likely illegal. However as a manager, and a CEO of a company, your biases and prejudices regarding the rights of some of your employees are more likely to affect your performance and hurt the company. But we are talking about Mozilla specifically, which states in their manifesto: "We are committed to an internet that includes all the peoples of the earth — where a person’s demographic characteristics do not determine their online access, opportunities, or quality of experience." If we put aside any value judgement on that statement, I can see how a CEO publicly supporting exclusion can raise concerns about their performance with respect to the company's mission. Even so, Eich wasn't fired, he resigned and moved on. Far more interesting to me is that 6 years later, you and others on this forums go to such effort to justify why any problem with the company is a consequence of that resignation. Eich doesn't need your support. I'm curious as to what drives the justifications and the splitting hairs as to what is the approved meaning of human rights as defined by international organizations. The language about denying human rights should have been the least controversial part of what I wrote.

will4274 6y ago
> Far more interesting to me is that 6 years later, you and others on this forums go to such effort to justify why any problem with the company is a consequence of that resignation. Eich doesn't need your support. I'm curious as to what drives the justifications and the splitting hairs as to what is the approved meaning of human rights as defined by international organizations. I think you may be observing something about yourself and attributing to others. Mozilla's problems aren't a consequence of Eich's resignation. Mozilla has several problems - I described three of them that are particularly prominent to me - 1) Debian / power users 2) wikimedia executives 3) and social justice amok. Eich resignation was one of two symptoms I gave as examples of the third problem. I could also have given this blog post as an example, as it bizarrely tries to describe a layoff in the context of fighting racism (were the laid off employees racist?). I find it interesting that you ignored all the other problems I mentioned and the other symptoms of the same problem and focused in on attacking Eich to such an extent.