4 ms·

Against Tolerance

17 points by mbrubeck 13y ago

angersock 13y ago
Author notes that, while Eich doesn't enforce his personal beliefs at work, he may be forcing them through his political donations. Which raises the point: same criticism goes to anyone who votes for anything you don't like--as long as you have democracy as well as acknowledging your government's authority, you will from time to time find yourself put-upon by somebody else voting to support something you don't like. Tough shit--don't let it get in the way of your work. The old saying "I disagree with what you say, but I'll gladly defend your right to say it" is perhaps more relevant today than ever before.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  Author goes on to say this issue rises above normal political disagreement. Its not taxes or zoning laws at issue; its who's fully human, with full rights. Its easy for those not involved to give a pass to coworkers that donate to restrict somebody else's life.
  - angersock 13y ago
    A basic human right--one much less arguable than some idea of state-granted civil union--is to have one's actions and words weighed thoughtfully. Throwing the technical leadership of Eich out over what amounts to a difference of opinion (on perhaps an important matter) is rubbish. Marriage is a societal compact, and as such is a product of the community in which you live. We, somewhat luckily, live in community where we can vote to establish norms. There is nothing wrong with having somebody else in the community vote or contribute with an opinion different than yours, because that is how the community comes to a consensus about its societal norms.
    - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
      Lots of whitewashing there. What if it was, for instance, slavery? Does that fit your definition of societal contract? Will you go quietly to the back of the bus, if for instance, we vote that supporters of 'traditional marriage' must do so?
      - angersock 13y ago
        So, your two examples there: one is denying me rights as a person (instead, I become property, which has no natural rights whatsoever), and the other is infringing on my right to association and free movement. There is no such thing as a right to "marriage", because such a thing exists only as a construct of various institutions. Indeed, forcing churches or municipalities to marry people whom they don't want to is infringing on the members of the institution's right of free association. (Now, the fact that they're close-minded homophobic shitheads is perhaps true, but that's not important.)
        JoeAltmaier 13y ago
        Please. Moving to the back of the bus is >> denying marriage? That institution that has repercussions in housing, taxes, rights throughout our society? Vs where you get to sit? Every 'right' is a social construct. I'm beginning to think you're trolling. And nobody is requiring churches to do anything. This is straw-man nonsense put out by the fearful.
- StefanKarpinski 13y ago
  Is there a "I disagree with who you're marrying, but I'll gladly defend your right to marry them" corollary to that? If not, maybe there should be.
- ascendantlogic 13y ago
  Mozilla as a company and a movement has made the technical world immeasurably better. Back before Firefox was released IE6 had taken over the world and there had been no attempts to fix the terribleness that it inflicted on the nascent web dev world. Firefox changed all that. It re-ignited the browser wars and caused so many good things to happen. This is obviously counterbalanced by the personal beliefs held by the now-CEO of the company. Where do you draw the line? Does the decade of browsers-now-use-web-standards get lost because Eich has questionable politics? To wit: Chik Fil-et had the same issue but I still eat there. Why? Because the company is full of good, hard-working people and I like the food. The CEO may not share my beliefs but does that automatically destroy everything else that might be good about that company? These are all rhetorical questions.
jedanbik 13y ago
It's incredibly bold to make a public statement like this.
chrismcb 13y ago
The author says "But we know that Brendan has already inserted his views on our relationships where those views don't belong: into the workings of the government, by means of making a political donation. " Isn't the whole point of democracy to insert your views into the workings of the government. To make political donations to people that you think have similar points to you? If you can't make a political donation, with your own money, then what can you do? One thing I don't get, do people think this guy is going to be a miserable leader and a bad businessman? Does the author think only people who believe the same things as the author can lead? The title was "against tolerance." I thought the author was going to rant about how intolerant some gays are. But instead he is saying he won't tolerate someone else having an opinion that differs with his own. I would be willing to bet every CEO out there has made a political contribution or voted for someone that "interfered" with the authors personal life.

17 points by mbrubeck 13y ago

Author notes that, while Eich doesn't enforce his personal beliefs at work, he may be forcing them through his political donations. Which raises the point: same criticism goes to anyone who votes for anything you don't like--as long as you have democracy as well as acknowledging your government's authority, you will from time to time find yourself put-upon by somebody else voting to support something you don't like. Tough shit--don't let it get in the way of your work. The old saying "I disagree with what you say, but I'll gladly defend your right to say it" is perhaps more relevant today than ever before.

JoeAltmaier 13y ago
Author goes on to say this issue rises above normal political disagreement. Its not taxes or zoning laws at issue; its who's fully human, with full rights. Its easy for those not involved to give a pass to coworkers that donate to restrict somebody else's life.
- angersock 13y ago
  A basic human right--one much less arguable than some idea of state-granted civil union--is to have one's actions and words weighed thoughtfully. Throwing the technical leadership of Eich out over what amounts to a difference of opinion (on perhaps an important matter) is rubbish. Marriage is a societal compact, and as such is a product of the community in which you live. We, somewhat luckily, live in community where we can vote to establish norms. There is nothing wrong with having somebody else in the community vote or contribute with an opinion different than yours, because that is how the community comes to a consensus about its societal norms.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    Lots of whitewashing there. What if it was, for instance, slavery? Does that fit your definition of societal contract? Will you go quietly to the back of the bus, if for instance, we vote that supporters of 'traditional marriage' must do so?
    - angersock 13y ago
      So, your two examples there: one is denying me rights as a person (instead, I become property, which has no natural rights whatsoever), and the other is infringing on my right to association and free movement. There is no such thing as a right to "marriage", because such a thing exists only as a construct of various institutions. Indeed, forcing churches or municipalities to marry people whom they don't want to is infringing on the members of the institution's right of free association. (Now, the fact that they're close-minded homophobic shitheads is perhaps true, but that's not important.)
      - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
        Please. Moving to the back of the bus is >> denying marriage? That institution that has repercussions in housing, taxes, rights throughout our society? Vs where you get to sit? Every 'right' is a social construct. I'm beginning to think you're trolling. And nobody is requiring churches to do anything. This is straw-man nonsense put out by the fearful.
StefanKarpinski 13y ago
Is there a "I disagree with who you're marrying, but I'll gladly defend your right to marry them" corollary to that? If not, maybe there should be.
ascendantlogic 13y ago
Mozilla as a company and a movement has made the technical world immeasurably better. Back before Firefox was released IE6 had taken over the world and there had been no attempts to fix the terribleness that it inflicted on the nascent web dev world. Firefox changed all that. It re-ignited the browser wars and caused so many good things to happen. This is obviously counterbalanced by the personal beliefs held by the now-CEO of the company. Where do you draw the line? Does the decade of browsers-now-use-web-standards get lost because Eich has questionable politics? To wit: Chik Fil-et had the same issue but I still eat there. Why? Because the company is full of good, hard-working people and I like the food. The CEO may not share my beliefs but does that automatically destroy everything else that might be good about that company? These are all rhetorical questions.

jedanbik 13y ago

It's incredibly bold to make a public statement like this.

chrismcb 13y ago

The author says "But we know that Brendan has already inserted his views on our relationships where those views don't belong: into the workings of the government, by means of making a political donation. " Isn't the whole point of democracy to insert your views into the workings of the government. To make political donations to people that you think have similar points to you? If you can't make a political donation, with your own money, then what can you do? One thing I don't get, do people think this guy is going to be a miserable leader and a bad businessman? Does the author think only people who believe the same things as the author can lead? The title was "against tolerance." I thought the author was going to rant about how intolerant some gays are. But instead he is saying he won't tolerate someone else having an opinion that differs with his own. I would be willing to bet every CEO out there has made a political contribution or voted for someone that "interfered" with the authors personal life.