3 ms·

>We need to stop this trend of calling anti-equal rights views "politics" as a way of playing down their severity. If your personal opinions are that others don

>We need to stop this trend of calling anti-equal rights views "politics" as a way of playing down their severity. If your personal opinions are that others don't deserve the same basic rights that you have you should face the consequences of holding those beliefs. I believe that who and how one loves is no one else's business except that of the consenting adults involved. Full stop. No equivocation, no caveats. Anyone else needs to mind their own fucking business. However, trashing someone's career because of their personal beliefs (with the caveat that those beliefs play no role in their professional position) is wrong. Assuming Eich didn't bring those beliefs into the office (whether that be by his speech or actions as an employee), it's irrelevant to his job. If we believe in liberty (such as the right of consenting adults to love how they need to do so), then we have to accept that others have liberty too -- within the constraint that the exercise of one's liberty doesn't impinge on the liberty of others[0]. Want to hate on Eich because he's a homophobe? Go for it. Want to call him out on his homophobia? Get on wit' yo' bad self! But none of that had anything to do with Eich's qualifications or ability to run Mozilla. What if you had a homophobic boss who hounded you out of your job because of your beliefs? Is that right? If you want to have a truly free society, you need to allow unpopular opinions to be held and expressed. And unless and until those opinions/beliefs actually impinge on the rights of others, we should tolerate (note I say 'tolerate' not embrace, endorse or accept) them. [0] As in "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

mason55 6y ago
> Want to hate on Eich because he's a homophobe? Go for it. Want to call him out on his homophobia? Get on wit' yo' bad self! But none of that had anything to do with Eich's qualifications or ability to run Mozilla. Ignoring the other arguments about comparing this to other basic human rights, if his politics are bringing a bunch of hate onto the company then it does impact his ability to do his job effectively.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Ignoring the other arguments about comparing this to other basic human rights, if his politics are bringing a bunch of hate onto the company then it does impact his ability to do his job effectively. That's a fair point. I'd only say that I find it illiberal and deeply reactionary and regressive to hound someone professionally because of their private actions (in that case, a monetary political donation). As much as I believe that all of us, regardless of ethnicity, melanin content, chromosome configuration, religion, or any of many, many other "differences" should equally benefit from the rule of law and equality under those laws, whether that be loving who and how we choose, agency over what happens to/with our bodies or any other human/civil right, I also believe that we need to extend that to those who disagree with me. Because if we are only free to live/speak/believe as we wish as long as other folks don't kick up a fuss about it, and along the way destroy our livelihoods, is that really freedom? And if it's okay to do so for those who hold "vile" beliefs, who's to say that beliefs we hold won't be considered "vile" next week, next month or next year? As such, by all means call out those who espouse hate and discrimination. But destroying someone's livelihood because you don't like what they think or say is antithetical to the ideals of liberty and equality.
  - jamienicol 6y ago
    Eich isn't just a homophobe in private, but actively sought to impinge on others' rights based on their sexuality. I joined Mozilla just after Eich had left, but had I been there at the time I wouldn't have wanted to work for him. I wouldn't want the proceeds of my work to earn him money, allowing him to donate money seeking to reduce LGBT rights. If enough of his employees feel the same way, and there is enough negative press from others (who are also just democratically expressing their opinions), then clearly his position as CEO was untenable. To equate that to destroying someone's livelihood based on their political beliefs is exactly the sort of mental gymnastics which keeps me coming back to this site.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
Riverheart 6y ago
"And unless and until those opinions/beliefs actually impinge on the rights of others, we should tolerate" Donating to prop 8 doesn't qualify as impinging on others rights? "But none of that had anything to do with Eich's qualifications or ability to run Mozilla" From a tech standpoint sure, but Mozilla has LGBTQ employees and contributors and it was a public relations nightmare.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Donating to prop 8 doesn't qualify as impinging on others rights? Are you arguing that our democratic process impinges on people's rights? Are you arguing that anyone who disagrees with a particular position that you support should not have the same political agency that you do? If so, then you are espousing support for a society that punishes non-conformity and freedom of thought and expression. I find that idea to be deeply authoritarian and illiberal. I oppose denying basic human and civil rights to anyone. And while that includes the right of folks to love who and how they wish, to have agency over their bodies and lives, it also includes the right of everyone to believe and speak as they choose, even if -- especially if -- I disagree with them.
  - Riverheart 6y ago
    You can wrap it in the flag if you want but the result is the same. He sought to restrict someone else's freedom and dealt with the social consequences of that action. He didn't just express an opinion, he sought to force that opinion on others. Your argument that I'm anti democratic is disingenuous at best.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >You can wrap it in the flag if you want but the result is the same. He sought to restrict someone else's freedom and dealt with the social consequences of that action. He didn't just express an opinion, he sought to force that opinion on others. Your argument that I'm anti democratic is disingenuous at best. While I agree with the sentiment that all humans should be allowed to love whom and in the way they see fit and vehemently disagree with Eich's personal views, I can't agree with your assessment that he "forced" anyone to do anything. He took part in a political process. That he was on the side that you (and I, for that matter) disagree with, doesn't invalidate his right to do so. His side was (and rightly so, in my view) smacked down. However, I take serious umbrage to your characterization that I'm wrapping anything in the flag, or that claiming that everyone should be allowed to exercise their political franchise (which you appear to reject) is disingenuous. I believe that individuals voting their conscience in free and fair elections is the heart of democracy. Unless I misunderstand your position (which is certainly possible), you appear to claim that other citizens (in this case, Eich) should not have the right to vote their conscience if you (or I, for that matter) disagree with their position. What, exactly, is disingenuous about that?

mason55 6y ago

> Want to hate on Eich because he's a homophobe? Go for it. Want to call him out on his homophobia? Get on wit' yo' bad self! But none of that had anything to do with Eich's qualifications or ability to run Mozilla. Ignoring the other arguments about comparing this to other basic human rights, if his politics are bringing a bunch of hate onto the company then it does impact his ability to do his job effectively.

nobody9999 6y ago
>Ignoring the other arguments about comparing this to other basic human rights, if his politics are bringing a bunch of hate onto the company then it does impact his ability to do his job effectively. That's a fair point. I'd only say that I find it illiberal and deeply reactionary and regressive to hound someone professionally because of their private actions (in that case, a monetary political donation). As much as I believe that all of us, regardless of ethnicity, melanin content, chromosome configuration, religion, or any of many, many other "differences" should equally benefit from the rule of law and equality under those laws, whether that be loving who and how we choose, agency over what happens to/with our bodies or any other human/civil right, I also believe that we need to extend that to those who disagree with me. Because if we are only free to live/speak/believe as we wish as long as other folks don't kick up a fuss about it, and along the way destroy our livelihoods, is that really freedom? And if it's okay to do so for those who hold "vile" beliefs, who's to say that beliefs we hold won't be considered "vile" next week, next month or next year? As such, by all means call out those who espouse hate and discrimination. But destroying someone's livelihood because you don't like what they think or say is antithetical to the ideals of liberty and equality.
- jamienicol 6y ago
  Eich isn't just a homophobe in private, but actively sought to impinge on others' rights based on their sexuality. I joined Mozilla just after Eich had left, but had I been there at the time I wouldn't have wanted to work for him. I wouldn't want the proceeds of my work to earn him money, allowing him to donate money seeking to reduce LGBT rights. If enough of his employees feel the same way, and there is enough negative press from others (who are also just democratically expressing their opinions), then clearly his position as CEO was untenable. To equate that to destroying someone's livelihood based on their political beliefs is exactly the sort of mental gymnastics which keeps me coming back to this site.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

Riverheart 6y ago

"And unless and until those opinions/beliefs actually impinge on the rights of others, we should tolerate" Donating to prop 8 doesn't qualify as impinging on others rights? "But none of that had anything to do with Eich's qualifications or ability to run Mozilla" From a tech standpoint sure, but Mozilla has LGBTQ employees and contributors and it was a public relations nightmare.

nobody9999 6y ago
>Donating to prop 8 doesn't qualify as impinging on others rights? Are you arguing that our democratic process impinges on people's rights? Are you arguing that anyone who disagrees with a particular position that you support should not have the same political agency that you do? If so, then you are espousing support for a society that punishes non-conformity and freedom of thought and expression. I find that idea to be deeply authoritarian and illiberal. I oppose denying basic human and civil rights to anyone. And while that includes the right of folks to love who and how they wish, to have agency over their bodies and lives, it also includes the right of everyone to believe and speak as they choose, even if -- especially if -- I disagree with them.
- Riverheart 6y ago
  You can wrap it in the flag if you want but the result is the same. He sought to restrict someone else's freedom and dealt with the social consequences of that action. He didn't just express an opinion, he sought to force that opinion on others. Your argument that I'm anti democratic is disingenuous at best.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >You can wrap it in the flag if you want but the result is the same. He sought to restrict someone else's freedom and dealt with the social consequences of that action. He didn't just express an opinion, he sought to force that opinion on others. Your argument that I'm anti democratic is disingenuous at best. While I agree with the sentiment that all humans should be allowed to love whom and in the way they see fit and vehemently disagree with Eich's personal views, I can't agree with your assessment that he "forced" anyone to do anything. He took part in a political process. That he was on the side that you (and I, for that matter) disagree with, doesn't invalidate his right to do so. His side was (and rightly so, in my view) smacked down. However, I take serious umbrage to your characterization that I'm wrapping anything in the flag, or that claiming that everyone should be allowed to exercise their political franchise (which you appear to reject) is disingenuous. I believe that individuals voting their conscience in free and fair elections is the heart of democracy. Unless I misunderstand your position (which is certainly possible), you appear to claim that other citizens (in this case, Eich) should not have the right to vote their conscience if you (or I, for that matter) disagree with their position. What, exactly, is disingenuous about that?