6 ms·

Firstly, it was _not_ a single political donation. I'm Jewish. If it came out that the new CEO of my company made white supremacist statements half a decade ag

by slavak 6y ago

Firstly, it was _not_ a single political donation. I'm Jewish. If it came out that the new CEO of my company made white supremacist statements half a decade ago, without any indication they had changed their position since, you better believe I would refuse to continue working for that company until and unless they were no longer CEO. This isn't a disagreement about the marginal tax rates to apply to millionaires, or a political difference about some minutiae of government regulation. Prop. 8 was directly opposed to the basic human rights of a segment of the population. Why would I, as a gay person, work for someone who seeks to deny me the basic right of an equal-under-the-law domestic partnership? Why would I, as a person with gay friends, overlook something like that, just because the CEO gives vague promises of being "supportive and welcoming" without actually disavowing any of their discriminatory viewpoints? Human rights are not a political position, and opposing them is not simply a friendly disagreement. No one is obligated to tolerate your attempts to deny people basic human rights in the name of inclusiveness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Appointment_to_CEO,_controversy_and_resignation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Appointment_to_CE...

0xbadcafebee 6y ago
This seems like a "my way or the highway" or "black and white" argument, coached in language suggesting that you don't need to make inroads for peace, for the sole reason that your side is inherently right and theirs is inherently wrong. This idea of firing or ostracizing people without attempting to reform them first is a shoot first, ask questions later, knee-jerk sort of morality. If you end someone's means of making a living or ostracize them from society, purely for moralistic reasons, just because you can, this is moral exclusion, a form of oppression. It's when your opinion of them is so poor that you no longer find the need to act ethically towards them. It's the same principle that enabled the oppression of the the Jews. Holding this opinion is possible if you refuse to come to terms with the humanity of the person you disagree with. Our only real "obligation" in society is to follow the law. If you only live based on this obligation, you can easily become quite cruel and in some ways immoral. But instead of simply living by obligation, we can do better: we can seek to create more peace than strife. That means making inroads with your enemy, not ostracizing them just because you can.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Nobody ended Eich's means of making a living, ostracized him from society, or denied his humanity. He remained Mozilla's CTO after his donation became widely known in 2012. There wasn't any significant protest until he was promoted to CEO in 2014. He wasn't fired and still reprimands people who say he was. He's been another browser company's CEO since 2015. Eich probably could've defused the situation if he just apologized. Instead he wouldn't even say he wouldn't do it again.[1] People didn't refuse to follow Eich just because they could. They didn't even refuse to follow him just because he hurt people. They refused to follow him because he still thought what he did was right 6 years later. Jews were oppressed because of who they were. Eich faced a choice because of what he did. [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-could-hurt-firefox-cause-q-a/ https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm...
  - 0xbadcafebee 6y ago
    Yes, but what was that thing he did? Voting: acting in accordance with the law. By pressuring him to resign, he was basically told that his actions within the law were immoral, unacceptable, and harmful. Eich had a choice to save himself: renounce his views. Of course the Jews were not given a choice during the Holocaust. But as a different example, they were given a choice to renounce their faith during the Spanish Inquisition. Clearly it's ridiculous for me to compare being burned alive to being corporately run out on a rail. Yet the choices offered, from a moral standpoint, were similar. Choose to renounce who you are and what you've done and you can stay a good member of society; stand your moral ground and be persecuted. In either case, the crime was not violating the Law of the State, but the moral law of a certain majority of society. How do we judge if we are being treated justly? Is the law always just? Are actions outside the scope of law always just? In truth, this is often subject to the time and place. Even today, we sometimes treat people unjustly within the scope of the law. That's why I suggest ethics that do not hang it's treatment of people on the power to act from personal morality alone. I think rather than say "repent or be shunned", other tactics could lead to changing the subject's mind or actions. Or even accepting that exiling the person does not change much materially about the world. They'll still be the same person in exile, doing the same things, so what was the benefit personally or to society of removing them from the group? If the "harm done" was merely to the emotional peace of the part of the group that has to come to terms with the morality of people acting within the law, this seems like a reason to keep the person. Because again, even if working outside Mozilla, Eich may vote the same, so the "harm" from a legal standpoint against gay marriage is unmoved either way. The only effect of the backlash was purely to the emotional peace of either (and to the overall quality of life of Eich). Keeping them could at least allow a rapport to form and possibly change views, on either side, without causing further harm. But this is just one case, so this may not work in other examples.

by slavak 6y ago

0xbadcafebee 6y ago

This seems like a "my way or the highway" or "black and white" argument, coached in language suggesting that you don't need to make inroads for peace, for the sole reason that your side is inherently right and theirs is inherently wrong. This idea of firing or ostracizing people without attempting to reform them first is a shoot first, ask questions later, knee-jerk sort of morality. If you end someone's means of making a living or ostracize them from society, purely for moralistic reasons, just because you can, this is moral exclusion, a form of oppression. It's when your opinion of them is so poor that you no longer find the need to act ethically towards them. It's the same principle that enabled the oppression of the the Jews. Holding this opinion is possible if you refuse to come to terms with the humanity of the person you disagree with. Our only real "obligation" in society is to follow the law. If you only live based on this obligation, you can easily become quite cruel and in some ways immoral. But instead of simply living by obligation, we can do better: we can seek to create more peace than strife. That means making inroads with your enemy, not ostracizing them just because you can.

pseudalopex 6y ago
Nobody ended Eich's means of making a living, ostracized him from society, or denied his humanity. He remained Mozilla's CTO after his donation became widely known in 2012. There wasn't any significant protest until he was promoted to CEO in 2014. He wasn't fired and still reprimands people who say he was. He's been another browser company's CEO since 2015. Eich probably could've defused the situation if he just apologized. Instead he wouldn't even say he wouldn't do it again.[1] People didn't refuse to follow Eich just because they could. They didn't even refuse to follow him just because he hurt people. They refused to follow him because he still thought what he did was right 6 years later. Jews were oppressed because of who they were. Eich faced a choice because of what he did. [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-could-hurt-firefox-cause-q-a/ https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm...
- 0xbadcafebee 6y ago
  Yes, but what was that thing he did? Voting: acting in accordance with the law. By pressuring him to resign, he was basically told that his actions within the law were immoral, unacceptable, and harmful. Eich had a choice to save himself: renounce his views. Of course the Jews were not given a choice during the Holocaust. But as a different example, they were given a choice to renounce their faith during the Spanish Inquisition. Clearly it's ridiculous for me to compare being burned alive to being corporately run out on a rail. Yet the choices offered, from a moral standpoint, were similar. Choose to renounce who you are and what you've done and you can stay a good member of society; stand your moral ground and be persecuted. In either case, the crime was not violating the Law of the State, but the moral law of a certain majority of society. How do we judge if we are being treated justly? Is the law always just? Are actions outside the scope of law always just? In truth, this is often subject to the time and place. Even today, we sometimes treat people unjustly within the scope of the law. That's why I suggest ethics that do not hang it's treatment of people on the power to act from personal morality alone. I think rather than say "repent or be shunned", other tactics could lead to changing the subject's mind or actions. Or even accepting that exiling the person does not change much materially about the world. They'll still be the same person in exile, doing the same things, so what was the benefit personally or to society of removing them from the group? If the "harm done" was merely to the emotional peace of the part of the group that has to come to terms with the morality of people acting within the law, this seems like a reason to keep the person. Because again, even if working outside Mozilla, Eich may vote the same, so the "harm" from a legal standpoint against gay marriage is unmoved either way. The only effect of the backlash was purely to the emotional peace of either (and to the overall quality of life of Eich). Keeping them could at least allow a rapport to form and possibly change views, on either side, without causing further harm. But this is just one case, so this may not work in other examples.