3 ms·

In addition to everything pseudalopex said below, which I agree with 100%, I'll just add that, yes, some things absolutely are and should be black-and-white, my

by slavak 6y ago

In addition to everything pseudalopex said below, which I agree with 100%, I'll just add that, yes, some things absolutely are and should be black-and-white, my-way-or-the-highway. Particularly, issues of human- and civil-rights. The opposition to Eich was not because of some unpopular opinion he held at some vague point in the past. He wanted to ban same-sex marriage in 2008, and all indications are he still wanted that in 2014. Eich had ample chance to easily diffuse the situation by clarifying his beliefs; instead, he provided vague platitudes about inclusiveness and leaving his personal opinions at the door. I'm sure there's plenty of companies that wouldn't mind having an anti-gay-marriage CEO. Hell, most people could stomach working with someone with those views; remember Eich was chief technologist and a Mozilla board member from the start, and CTO from 2005, which Mozilla's LGBTQ employees obviously tolerated. But I'm sorry, I have very little trust that a company can maintain a certain set of values, when I know for a fact its Chief Executive Officer holds diametrically opposite views. Management shapes every aspect of a company, so the personal opinions of the person holding the highest position in that chain matter. There is nothing unethical about acting this way. This is not denying Brendan Eich his humanity (unlike what his views do to others). Being CEO of Mozilla is not a basic human right that he is being denied.

nobodyandproud 6y ago
If a society is to be tolerant, there has to be a separation between when someone is politically active; and when someone decides to take matters into their own hands (e.g., firing someone because they’re trans). Maybe you’re right that a CEO is different, but the ordeal left me with an uneasy feeling. If I’m on the wrong side of the popular-opinion in the future, what’s to stop me from being ostracized and pushed out? Because if it can happen up high, you better believe that it can happen to the rank and file. Yea, there’s a tension and it’s almost contradictory to allow this but I think it’s important. The other consequence of this is that anonymity (voting, for example) seems to be just as relevant today.
- slavak 6y ago
  You've got it backwards- the rank and file are held to much different standards than upper management. As a Sw. Engineer, or even a team lead, my opinions are indeed my own, as long as they don't negatively impact my work; as a CEO, his opinions shape the direction of the company; this isn't something you can just leave at the door, no matter how much you claim otherwise. Again, this isn't just about an unpopular opinion or a difference of perspective. We're talking about literally denying human beings their civil rights. Where do you draw the line with this? Do I need to accept a person who works towards racial segregation? Is a Nazi acceptable, as long as they don't try to commit genocide on company time? If you're ever on the wrong side of granting people basic human and civil rights, I hope you'll have the good sense to reconsider and change your position. I'm not sure why you believe anyone owes you acceptance of your views regardless of what they are.
  - nobodyandproud 6y ago
    What? It’s always the rank-and-file who get fired if (somehow) their viewpoints are made public and it’s embarrassing. whereas anyone in power get a free pass because they built up a network of influence. When it was taboo to be gay, why did Alan Turing get screwed, while nobles like Vita Sackville West did not? More recently, Christian Cooper did not and does not want Amy Cooper (the infamous Central Park Karen) fired for what she did, because who wants a racist as their employee? Don’t you wonder why Christian Cooper didn’t want that, even though by all rights he should have felt differently? As for where I draw the line: If it’s legal and it doesn’t affect business/work, then it’s something to tolerate. If the person becomes disruptive, or can’t separate their personal views from working well with their colleagues then it’s time to part ways. But then again, I trust people to fight the good fight so that things work out for the best and conclusively. Finally, I definitely don’t appreciate you making assumptions about my views just because I find what happened worrisome. Your insinuations are a very short step from an irrational witch hunt and exactly why I find what happened worrisome.

by slavak 6y ago

nobodyandproud 6y ago

If a society is to be tolerant, there has to be a separation between when someone is politically active; and when someone decides to take matters into their own hands (e.g., firing someone because they’re trans). Maybe you’re right that a CEO is different, but the ordeal left me with an uneasy feeling. If I’m on the wrong side of the popular-opinion in the future, what’s to stop me from being ostracized and pushed out? Because if it can happen up high, you better believe that it can happen to the rank and file. Yea, there’s a tension and it’s almost contradictory to allow this but I think it’s important. The other consequence of this is that anonymity (voting, for example) seems to be just as relevant today.

slavak 6y ago
You've got it backwards- the rank and file are held to much different standards than upper management. As a Sw. Engineer, or even a team lead, my opinions are indeed my own, as long as they don't negatively impact my work; as a CEO, his opinions shape the direction of the company; this isn't something you can just leave at the door, no matter how much you claim otherwise. Again, this isn't just about an unpopular opinion or a difference of perspective. We're talking about literally denying human beings their civil rights. Where do you draw the line with this? Do I need to accept a person who works towards racial segregation? Is a Nazi acceptable, as long as they don't try to commit genocide on company time? If you're ever on the wrong side of granting people basic human and civil rights, I hope you'll have the good sense to reconsider and change your position. I'm not sure why you believe anyone owes you acceptance of your views regardless of what they are.
- nobodyandproud 6y ago
  What? It’s always the rank-and-file who get fired if (somehow) their viewpoints are made public and it’s embarrassing. whereas anyone in power get a free pass because they built up a network of influence. When it was taboo to be gay, why did Alan Turing get screwed, while nobles like Vita Sackville West did not? More recently, Christian Cooper did not and does not want Amy Cooper (the infamous Central Park Karen) fired for what she did, because who wants a racist as their employee? Don’t you wonder why Christian Cooper didn’t want that, even though by all rights he should have felt differently? As for where I draw the line: If it’s legal and it doesn’t affect business/work, then it’s something to tolerate. If the person becomes disruptive, or can’t separate their personal views from working well with their colleagues then it’s time to part ways. But then again, I trust people to fight the good fight so that things work out for the best and conclusively. Finally, I definitely don’t appreciate you making assumptions about my views just because I find what happened worrisome. Your insinuations are a very short step from an irrational witch hunt and exactly why I find what happened worrisome.