4 ms·

> which declare opinions like cells declare osmotic pressure I got a good laugh out of this, well put! Brendan Eich has the right to hold those opinions and w

> which declare opinions like cells declare osmotic pressure I got a good laugh out of this, well put! Brendan Eich has the right to hold those opinions and whatever other opinions he wishes to hold. He has the right to publicly express them in the form of spoken or written words, campaign donations, or any other number of legal rights guaranteed by the first amendment. Here's some rights he does not have: 1) The right to unconditional employment, or a constitutional right to be the CEO of Mozilla. 2) The right to freedom from criticism of his beliefs. 3) The right to freedom from social consequences of his beliefs. Remember that criticism is not censorship, those are different things entirely and when they are conflated it's almost always to protect people with those aforementioned pretty fucking stupid opinions. His opinions about homosexuality are offensive and disappointing to a lot of people. Why shouldn't they be able to express that to Mozilla? And if Mozilla feels like enough people are upset with their decision, they have the right to respond to market demands. Let's veer wildly into strawman territory here. Let's say that instead of Brendan Eich, let's say Mozilla found some other extremely talented technologist to take the reins, but they were coincidentally an active, avowed white supremacist. Would you still think he has the right to hold those opinions without worrying about their effect on his career? What if he believed that non-Muslims should be put to the sword, or that women should be the property of their husbands, or any number of other horrible, backwards beliefs. Still cool with him as the CEO of Mozilla? If not, then we're really just disagreeing over how horrible someone's opinions have to be before they disqualify them from the position as the head of the CEO of a company that prides itself on inclusiveness and equality.

bzbarsky 13y ago
Would you describe someone who made a single monetary donation to a white supremacist cause 6 years ago and didn't say anything about it to anyone at the time, such that it took 4 years to discover the donation had even been made, an "active, avowed white supremacist"? I'm not saying there are easy answers here, but I think that your hypothetical assumes someone who lets their horrible backwards beliefs affect their professional actions. So let's consider the counterfactual that more closely models the current situation: someone who made a single donation to a white supremacist cause 6 years ago, has not publicly expressed any white supremacist views other than making the donation, routinely works with non-white colleagues in a reasonable way, and supports workplace involvement in Black History Month activities is appointed CEO. What should happen? I want to say I'd be OK with this, but it's hard to predict visceral reactions ahead of time. :( As another interesting counterfactual, say that instead of donating to a white supremacy organization they donated to Nation of Islam. Otherwise, assume it's all the same: works fine with Jews and whites, doesn't speak out on race/religion issues in day-to-day interactions. I want to say I'd be OK with this too, though personally I'd have more skin in the game here than in the other cases, and I suspect people would generally be more OK with this situation than with the person who donated to a white supremacist cause... (As an aside, would you consider Nation of Islam as an organization that believes "non-Muslims should be put to the sword"?) Edit: I think at the heart of the issue is that people have a really hard time accepting that someone might make such a donation but be OK working with the sort of people the organization they donated to is against. I know _I_ have a hard time imagining anyone who donates to a "women should be the property of their husbands" organization interacting well with women in a workplace environment. It doesn't help that I don't know any people who would make such a donation, leaving me guessing at the reasons why one would, and Occam's Razor would say be that they hold deep-rooted beliefs about women being inferior. I've tried to come up with some other reasons someone might make such a donation while being OK working with women, but they all seem contrived to me. If faced with an actual example of a person who made such a donation but works well with women, I would be _very_ interested in talking to them to find out where they're coming from. As a result, people are operating from assumptions which don't actually match reality as well as they should in this case. Your counterfactual of an "active, avowed white supremacist" more closely models how people are perceiving this situation, based on their knowledge about the donation only, and no knowledge about Brendan's day-to-day interactions with LGBTQ colleagues, than do my counterfactuals. But mine more closely model what's really going on...

bzbarsky 13y ago

Would you describe someone who made a single monetary donation to a white supremacist cause 6 years ago and didn't say anything about it to anyone at the time, such that it took 4 years to discover the donation had even been made, an "active, avowed white supremacist"? I'm not saying there are easy answers here, but I think that your hypothetical assumes someone who lets their horrible backwards beliefs affect their professional actions. So let's consider the counterfactual that more closely models the current situation: someone who made a single donation to a white supremacist cause 6 years ago, has not publicly expressed any white supremacist views other than making the donation, routinely works with non-white colleagues in a reasonable way, and supports workplace involvement in Black History Month activities is appointed CEO. What should happen? I want to say I'd be OK with this, but it's hard to predict visceral reactions ahead of time. :( As another interesting counterfactual, say that instead of donating to a white supremacy organization they donated to Nation of Islam. Otherwise, assume it's all the same: works fine with Jews and whites, doesn't speak out on race/religion issues in day-to-day interactions. I want to say I'd be OK with this too, though personally I'd have more skin in the game here than in the other cases, and I suspect people would generally be more OK with this situation than with the person who donated to a white supremacist cause... (As an aside, would you consider Nation of Islam as an organization that believes "non-Muslims should be put to the sword"?) Edit: I think at the heart of the issue is that people have a really hard time accepting that someone might make such a donation but be OK working with the sort of people the organization they donated to is against. I know _I_ have a hard time imagining anyone who donates to a "women should be the property of their husbands" organization interacting well with women in a workplace environment. It doesn't help that I don't know any people who would make such a donation, leaving me guessing at the reasons why one would, and Occam's Razor would say be that they hold deep-rooted beliefs about women being inferior. I've tried to come up with some other reasons someone might make such a donation while being OK working with women, but they all seem contrived to me. If faced with an actual example of a person who made such a donation but works well with women, I would be _very_ interested in talking to them to find out where they're coming from. As a result, people are operating from assumptions which don't actually match reality as well as they should in this case. Your counterfactual of an "active, avowed white supremacist" more closely models how people are perceiving this situation, based on their knowledge about the donation only, and no knowledge about Brendan's day-to-day interactions with LGBTQ colleagues, than do my counterfactuals. But mine more closely model what's really going on...