4 ms·

Eich's view was totally private and pulled up by reporters. The USA is a democracy, it's completely unnecessary to cancel Eich. Just advocate for the opposing v

Eich's view was totally private and pulled up by reporters. The USA is a democracy, it's completely unnecessary to cancel Eich. Just advocate for the opposing view if that's your wish.

wat10000 2y ago
His name was on a published list of donors. It's not like reporters went digging through his trash. Making a donation where there's a legal requirement to publish your contribution is not "totally private." Why is it OK for Eich to try to prevent certain people from getting married, but it's not OK for Eich's employees to try to prevent him from having a certain job? Please explain using small words so I can understand the difference.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  I don't know any small words for this, but the right word is "disproportionate."
  - wat10000 2y ago
    Is a wealthy person losing their job worse than the state making it illegal to marry the person you love because they don't like the way your genitals match?
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      If he personally ended gay marriage I would see what you are saying, but he donated a tiny amount of money relative to the sum total of donations to fail to stop gay marriage. It's a bit like blaming one person's commute for global warming, in a better world where global warming had been stopped.
      - wat10000 2y ago
        How much support for hurting your employees and users is required before it’s justifiable to find a different CEO? One common theme I’ve noticed among all the people arguing with me here is that you’re all steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the part where he was the CEO. You’re here comparing him to one random person. I have other replies trying to paint me as inconsistent because I’m not trying to get my bigoted coworkers fired or doing something about random bigots in the community. There’s a big difference when a person is in a leadership role. I’m pretty sure you’re all smart enough to understand that, so I can only assume that you’re avoiding that understanding because it would fatally undermine your argument.
        whatshisface 2y ago
        CEOs are employees too. They don't own the company, they work for the shareholders. While on one hand that's the social justification for firing them at-will, it also means (to me at least) that they should be subject to normal HR processes that involve some rights for them. That's not special to CEOs, it should be universal to any worker. If someone steadfastly refuses to stop bringing hate to work, or if they do something physically violent or verbally abusive, you have to fire them, but if they deviate only a little bit, they deserve to face pressure and criticism before getting kicked out - or maybe even a chance to defend themselves, or come to terms with the other side.
        wat10000 2y ago
        We have worker rights to keep people from being exploited, and because losing your job can wreck your life. None of this applies to a wealthy CEO. How many people lose their jobs every day in this country because they were slightly less than 100% obsequious to a customer or to their boss? And we just shrug. But one CEO gets fired because he doesn’t have the confidence of his workers and you lose your minds. Why are people so sympathetic to rich people who suffer a small setback? It’s bizarre.
taco_emoji 2y ago
Making a political donation is not a private activity.
acdha 2y ago
His actions were totally public and affected people who worked for him. Thinking “I don’t like broccoli” is a private action. Contributing your effort to take away existing marriages and prevent new ones is not a private action: he isn’t a party to someone else’s marriage and nobody was forcing him to have gay marriage if he didn’t want one, nor would his church be required to perform or recognize them. The only reason to support Prop 8 was an explicitly public political statement that the government would interfere with personal liberties for religious grounds. That’s shameful enough – and completely discredits his purported religious beliefs – but it’s especially bad for an officer of a public company because it creates a hostile working environment. If you’re gay, working for a homophobe means that you have to view any decisions he makes through the lens of whether he thinks your life should be illegal. Even if you only care about the business, anyone with a stake still needs to worry about liability from creating a strong argument for a lawsuit arguing that a negative personnel decision wasn’t based on the stated rationale.

Eich's view was totally private and pulled up by reporters. The USA is a democracy, it's completely unnecessary to cancel Eich. Just advocate for the opposing view if that's your wish.

wat10000 2y ago

His name was on a published list of donors. It's not like reporters went digging through his trash. Making a donation where there's a legal requirement to publish your contribution is not "totally private." Why is it OK for Eich to try to prevent certain people from getting married, but it's not OK for Eich's employees to try to prevent him from having a certain job? Please explain using small words so I can understand the difference.

whatshisface 2y ago
I don't know any small words for this, but the right word is "disproportionate."
- wat10000 2y ago
  Is a wealthy person losing their job worse than the state making it illegal to marry the person you love because they don't like the way your genitals match?
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    If he personally ended gay marriage I would see what you are saying, but he donated a tiny amount of money relative to the sum total of donations to fail to stop gay marriage. It's a bit like blaming one person's commute for global warming, in a better world where global warming had been stopped.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      How much support for hurting your employees and users is required before it’s justifiable to find a different CEO? One common theme I’ve noticed among all the people arguing with me here is that you’re all steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the part where he was the CEO. You’re here comparing him to one random person. I have other replies trying to paint me as inconsistent because I’m not trying to get my bigoted coworkers fired or doing something about random bigots in the community. There’s a big difference when a person is in a leadership role. I’m pretty sure you’re all smart enough to understand that, so I can only assume that you’re avoiding that understanding because it would fatally undermine your argument.
      - whatshisface 2y ago
        CEOs are employees too. They don't own the company, they work for the shareholders. While on one hand that's the social justification for firing them at-will, it also means (to me at least) that they should be subject to normal HR processes that involve some rights for them. That's not special to CEOs, it should be universal to any worker. If someone steadfastly refuses to stop bringing hate to work, or if they do something physically violent or verbally abusive, you have to fire them, but if they deviate only a little bit, they deserve to face pressure and criticism before getting kicked out - or maybe even a chance to defend themselves, or come to terms with the other side.
        wat10000 2y ago
        We have worker rights to keep people from being exploited, and because losing your job can wreck your life. None of this applies to a wealthy CEO. How many people lose their jobs every day in this country because they were slightly less than 100% obsequious to a customer or to their boss? And we just shrug. But one CEO gets fired because he doesn’t have the confidence of his workers and you lose your minds. Why are people so sympathetic to rich people who suffer a small setback? It’s bizarre.

taco_emoji 2y ago

Making a political donation is not a private activity.

acdha 2y ago

His actions were totally public and affected people who worked for him. Thinking “I don’t like broccoli” is a private action. Contributing your effort to take away existing marriages and prevent new ones is not a private action: he isn’t a party to someone else’s marriage and nobody was forcing him to have gay marriage if he didn’t want one, nor would his church be required to perform or recognize them. The only reason to support Prop 8 was an explicitly public political statement that the government would interfere with personal liberties for religious grounds. That’s shameful enough – and completely discredits his purported religious beliefs – but it’s especially bad for an officer of a public company because it creates a hostile working environment. If you’re gay, working for a homophobe means that you have to view any decisions he makes through the lens of whether he thinks your life should be illegal. Even if you only care about the business, anyone with a stake still needs to worry about liability from creating a strong argument for a lawsuit arguing that a negative personnel decision wasn’t based on the stated rationale.