3 ms·

I'm not talking about private mental states. I'm talking about concrete activities attempting to formally change how the state treats certain people. And yeah,

I'm not talking about private mental states. I'm talking about concrete activities attempting to formally change how the state treats certain people. And yeah, you're not supposed to voice them. That's not some sort of gotcha, that's common sense. If you think some of your coworkers are lesser, then you'd better keep that shit under your hat, or leave. You cannot expect to make those views public and then stick around like everything's still fine.

grandempire 2y ago
> You cannot expect to make those views public Once again, Brendan Eich did not publicly advocate - journalists searched through small donations. > If you think some of your coworkers are lesser, Im sure all of my coworkers hold religious, ethnic, cultural, and gender biases of many kinds. Because they are people. I hope we can minimize these and treat each other with care and respect, and I would not tolerate mistreatment.
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  Yeah, they seem to be missing the plot. Eich has never been on record saying anything homophobic. It's cancel culture through and through. If you sift through the private views of anyone, there will always be something disagreeable.
- wat10000 2y ago
  He didn't announce his views. He did make them public by making donations that were publicly visible. Does helping to pass laws to formalize certain people as legally less-than qualify as "mistreatment"? If not, why not?
  - grandempire 2y ago
    Help me understand which position you’re still advocating for: 1) if you knew a coworker supported this bill you would want them fired, (I’ve said all I can here.) 2) the harm was when he gave $1000 which is when a bias because mistreatment I don’t know what to say to that one.
    - quesera 2y ago
      You're missing a critical part. Eich's donation was well-known. The lists are public. Lots of Mozilla folks were aware and unimpressed, but they tolerated it because Eich (CTO) was a respected member of the corp with a long history of technical excellence. As well as no workplace hostility etc. Then Eich was to be promoted to CEO, which is a nontechnical job that involves being the public face of the corporation and speaking on behalf of all employees. A substantial portion of Mozilla employees felt that this new expanded role would not be appropriate for Eich or anyone who had expressed hostility to a marginalized group, that Eich did not represent the values of Mozilla, and that they did not want to promote him or to be led by him. So they created an internal stir which gathered a lot of internal support, bled into public forums, and led Eich to back out of the CEO role. He probably could have gone back to CTO, but he decided to resign from the organization instead.
      - BrendanEich 2y ago
        Andreas Gal was already CTO after I got the CEO appointment. No "gone back to CTO" and stomp on Andreas in that role. I had been SVP Engineering too, but that was not in the new org chart I set up as CEO. As I've written elsewhere, I left to help Mozilla, not hurt it. What happened after I left is not in any way on me. I'm not a slave, serf, indentured servant, or lifelong mandatory employee-subject of Mozilla, and I thank God every day for this.
        quesera 2y ago
        Resigning may have been the only honorable option under those circumstances, to be fair. But I don't think the Org would have spit you out at the CTO or SVP level, even after the controversy. The boneheaded move was elevating you in the first place. Not that you didn't deserve it or were not capable! Just that it was doomed to create extreme conflict with a large portion of the Mozilla community, which has always had a much broader mission than "simple" excellence. There's a good argument that this breadth often manifests as a lack of focus, and that anything other than excellence should be secondary at best. But that's not how Mozilla was built or staffed or marketed. And here we are. I wish it was otherwise -- and of course I agree that it is absolutely not on you -- but I do sometimes wonder what Mozilla would be like today if not for that Prop 8 donation.

grandempire 2y ago

> You cannot expect to make those views public Once again, Brendan Eich did not publicly advocate - journalists searched through small donations. > If you think some of your coworkers are lesser, Im sure all of my coworkers hold religious, ethnic, cultural, and gender biases of many kinds. Because they are people. I hope we can minimize these and treat each other with care and respect, and I would not tolerate mistreatment.

amazingamazing 2y ago
Yeah, they seem to be missing the plot. Eich has never been on record saying anything homophobic. It's cancel culture through and through. If you sift through the private views of anyone, there will always be something disagreeable.
wat10000 2y ago
He didn't announce his views. He did make them public by making donations that were publicly visible. Does helping to pass laws to formalize certain people as legally less-than qualify as "mistreatment"? If not, why not?
- grandempire 2y ago
  Help me understand which position you’re still advocating for: 1) if you knew a coworker supported this bill you would want them fired, (I’ve said all I can here.) 2) the harm was when he gave $1000 which is when a bias because mistreatment I don’t know what to say to that one.
  - quesera 2y ago
    You're missing a critical part. Eich's donation was well-known. The lists are public. Lots of Mozilla folks were aware and unimpressed, but they tolerated it because Eich (CTO) was a respected member of the corp with a long history of technical excellence. As well as no workplace hostility etc. Then Eich was to be promoted to CEO, which is a nontechnical job that involves being the public face of the corporation and speaking on behalf of all employees. A substantial portion of Mozilla employees felt that this new expanded role would not be appropriate for Eich or anyone who had expressed hostility to a marginalized group, that Eich did not represent the values of Mozilla, and that they did not want to promote him or to be led by him. So they created an internal stir which gathered a lot of internal support, bled into public forums, and led Eich to back out of the CEO role. He probably could have gone back to CTO, but he decided to resign from the organization instead.
    - BrendanEich 2y ago
      Andreas Gal was already CTO after I got the CEO appointment. No "gone back to CTO" and stomp on Andreas in that role. I had been SVP Engineering too, but that was not in the new org chart I set up as CEO. As I've written elsewhere, I left to help Mozilla, not hurt it. What happened after I left is not in any way on me. I'm not a slave, serf, indentured servant, or lifelong mandatory employee-subject of Mozilla, and I thank God every day for this.
      - quesera 2y ago
        Resigning may have been the only honorable option under those circumstances, to be fair. But I don't think the Org would have spit you out at the CTO or SVP level, even after the controversy. The boneheaded move was elevating you in the first place. Not that you didn't deserve it or were not capable! Just that it was doomed to create extreme conflict with a large portion of the Mozilla community, which has always had a much broader mission than "simple" excellence. There's a good argument that this breadth often manifests as a lack of focus, and that anything other than excellence should be secondary at best. But that's not how Mozilla was built or staffed or marketed. And here we are. I wish it was otherwise -- and of course I agree that it is absolutely not on you -- but I do sometimes wonder what Mozilla would be like today if not for that Prop 8 donation.