5 ms·
The problem with blacklisting someone for a political view is that it can always be done. Right now, it's popular to call people who oppose gay marriage laws 'h
by freditup 13y ago
The problem with blacklisting someone for a political view is that it can always be done. Right now, it's popular to call people who oppose gay marriage laws 'homophobes' and throw them under the bus. (In this thread, a lot of people seem to imply that Eich should have some sort of repercussions for his donation such as not getting this job.) Let's take a look at some other similar parallels:
- Saying people in favor of abortion are for legalized murder, and not hiring them because of that
- Saying people opposed to abortion oppress women, and not hiring them because of that
- Saying people who support raising taxes are for legalized robbery, and not hiring them because of that
- Saying people who oppose more relaxed immigration laws are racist, and not hiring them because of that
The list could go on, but the point stands. You can always characterize your political opponent as some sort of monster. But you never should.
- wpietri 13y agoCourt after court has found that there is no rational basis for preventing gay marriage. Most recently, one in Michigan: http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4220110321.PDF http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4220110321.PDF The parallels you offer are missing the point, because none of them suggest a CEO has an irrational bias against a significant fraction of his employees. This donation, though, does. Unless Eich has convincingly apologized and demonstrated different views, you have to bet that a lot of people in the San Francisco office and elsewhere are wondering, "Given that my new boss may have an irrational bias against me, is this going to affect my benefits, my chance at promotion, or my working climate?" That's entirely material to his position as CEO. Mozilla is competing with the world's top tech companies for talent, and their main advantage is a clear belief that they're doing good. Anything that taints that could make hiring harder.
- humanrebar 13y agoCourts were also in favor of putting Japanese people in internment camps at one point. It doesn't make them right. If people don't want to work for Mozilla because of Eich, fantastic. They can form their own foundation and work on Iceweasel. Everybody gets what they want.
- wpietri 13y agoThe argument that since courts were wrong once we needn't consider anything any of them ever say is so absurd that I hope you're trolling here.
- humanrebar 13y agoSpeaking of trolling, I didn't say that at all. I was pointing out that an appeal to court precedent is a form of appeal to authority, which is hardly convincing, with numerous counter-examples available upon request. Perhaps the actual reasoning of the court might be convincing, but in this case, the reasoning was, "there is no rational basis", which reads more like an admission of ignorance than anything else.
- wpietri 13y agoI'm not appealing to the court's authority. So that you and others can see the reasoning, I'm pointing you at a carefully-considered legal opinion by a federal judge. One similar to others on the topic, like Judge Walker's decision on Prop 8. Hand-wave it away if you like, but the rational-basis standard [1] is a key legal concept here. When court after court finds that there is no rational basis to these laws after carefully examining every rationale offered by proponents, I think it's reasonable for gay people to conclude that promoters of those laws are irrationally biased against them. Especially those promoters unwilling to offer any other explanation. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review
- humanrebar 13y agoExcept the "proponents" in this case did not include the people who put forward this referendum in the first place. Instead, the referendum bypassed the California government to put the issue to a popular vote. When the popular vote was challenged in court, the government lawyers had no incentive to put up a good defense, which they didn't. It's really a loophole in the referendum system, and if California is serious about the referendum, they need to give standing to some groups to give them the right to defend their initiatives in court.
- rjknight 13y agoThis is all true, but is there not a possibility that Eich having invented one of the world's most popular programming languages might out-weigh these factors in the minds of people who are evaluating whether they'd like to work with/for him? If you're arguing that Eich should not have the job on pragmatic (rather than purely principled) grounds then you'd need to consider such other factors.
- wpietri 13y agoFreditup was asking why this is different than questioning a CEO's political views on abortion. My answer: because his donation suggests an irrational bias against his employees. I'm not arguing that Eich should or should not have the job. I don't have enough data to say. But I am saying that apparently having an irrational bias against gay people is legitimately problematic for gay employees, and is therefore material in considering his fitness for CEO in a way that isn't true for other political views.
- skore 13y agoI'm very tired of this brand of relativism that is unfortunately rather popular in tech circles, no matter how progressive we like to think ourselves. "Similar Parallels" No, there is a looooong gradient along which the issues you mention (and issues like homophobia) can be placed. Society moves in a certain direction - if you graph public attitude towards homosexuals, there is a clear trend. Similar graphs can be drawn for abortion, womens rights and immigration reform. On the other hand, directly equating "raising taxes" with robbery sits at a very steady equilibrium of whoever currently uses that sort of logic to kill arguments. Most recently (ie. past couple of years), it is mostly being picked up by the libertarian mindset which is in turn utilized by the more mainstream political right in the US. We all make choices and our combined choices influence how that graph progresses, but you can directly compare an individuals position with the median position in society. Removing or blocking people from powerful positions when they seem to be too removed from that median is a fundamentally and democratically sound mechanic.
- humanrebar 13y agoExcept in this case, the median Californian voted for Prop 8.
- skore 13y agoThat's besides the point: My argument is that we need to understand it in a historical context. 52% of Californians voted for Prop 8 in 2008. But: Had you asked 10, 25, 50, 100 years before that, what would the outcome have been? Draw a graph along that line through 2008 and you can track the development of public opinion.
- humanrebar 13y agoExcept I disagree that blacklisting people for political views is a valid democratic mechanism. You're basically making the "be on the right side of history" argument, but you presume to much. For example public opinion on abortion has been roughly flat for fifty years.
- nostromo 13y agoIt's actually an interesting question: When does a political opinion become untenable? Slavery was once a political opinion. Women's suffrage as well. There are many other more extreme examples from abroad. Calling a position political doesn't absolve its owner from consequences. I think in the Bay Area, opposing gay marriage has crossed over, and is no longer simply a political opinion upon which decent people may disagree.
- MrZongle2 13y agoand is no longer simply a political opinion upon which decent people may disagree. So....what shall be done with the people who have been deemed indecent? Rounded up, perhaps? Subjected to re-education?