3 ms·

it is ridiculous when employees have an ax to grind at work, for example their politics or sexuality. at work, focus on work.

dalanmiller 13y ago
It's not ridiculous at all. Where we spend our time and energy matters. I cannot imagine the frustration I would feel being gay and working at Mozilla knowing that the new CEO donated money to block the opportunity for me to be married to my longtime partner. I just don't think that it would be possible to continue work like nothing was wrong after that.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  Just keep raising that bar, soon it will be that they cannot donate to a certain political party, attend a church you don't like, eat at an establishment you don't like, and on and on and on. All because you want to feel offended. Fine feel offended and suck it up. If it has an effect on your work based on what other do legally in their free time its your problem not theirs. This world isn't about having everything we want.
  - dalanmiller 13y ago
    I get your rationale, and where this conversation goes towards infinity but I don't think most people take it to that extent although that is always the 'fearful' rebuttal. I don't want to feel offended, but it just seems like it would be hard to promote a "culture of inclusiveness" as the CEO given prior actions.
  - dalke 13y ago
    "Soon"? All of those have long been sufficient criteria for some, and there's no "raising the bar" going on. Some people will chose an establishment just because the owner is, or isn't, member of a specific church. An LGBT organization is unlikely to hire someone who walks in to the interview carrying a Chik-Fil-A lunch, or support another LGBT organization whose leader does the same. Here's a case of boycotting a store chain because the owners (not the corporation) supported a politician: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Joaquin-Castro-to-boycott-Buc-ee-s-after-owners-5307143.php http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Joaquin-Castr... People express their offense and outrage all the time, about all sorts of issues. Sometimes it gets traction. Most times it doesn't. The bar moves around, certainly, but that doesn't mean it ratchets higher. Few now call for boycotts of communist owned organizations and black-lists of communists like they did during the red scares.
- alandarev 13y ago
  That is a good and valid point. Interestingly, the opposite might hold as well - gay opposition would not work for a gay CEO. Wouldn't it be better if political opinions like that stayed private, so that people can work with each other?
  - dalanmiller 13y ago
    Ideally, probably. But as humans I don't believe we can always leave 100% of us at the door, and it seems unrealistic to switch from one human to another just because our physical space changes.
  - Drakim 13y ago
    People who are opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage can simply not be homosexual and not get a gay marriage. They can literally throw their hands up in the air and say "I don't want any part of this topic" and go on with their life, ignoring it. Just like how somebody who isn't for interracial marriage can simply marry a person of their own race, or somebody who isn't for marriage at all can simply not get married. Gay people don't have that luxury, because the issue being discussed concerns their actual personal rights. Wether it's gay marriage, adoption or anti-soddomy laws, it's things that affect them no matter if they want to be part of the debate or not. They cannot throw up their arms and go on with their life, because they can now not get married, not adopt children, and so on. It's easy to say that they should keep their private life out of politics, but politics has forced their private life into the spotlight.
- puppetmaster3 13y ago
  Help me for real with that logic in this example: Should straights be upset working for Apple?
puppetmaster3 13y ago
just fyi, I got -4 down votes by the moderators for this opinion. congrats to HN moderators.
- dang 13y ago
  First, please re-read what the HN guidelines say about not complaining when you're downvoted. Second, you are mistaken. Your comments' negative scores are because users, not moderators, downvoted you. Moderators don't have special downvoting powers.

dalanmiller 13y ago

It's not ridiculous at all. Where we spend our time and energy matters. I cannot imagine the frustration I would feel being gay and working at Mozilla knowing that the new CEO donated money to block the opportunity for me to be married to my longtime partner. I just don't think that it would be possible to continue work like nothing was wrong after that.

Shivetya 13y ago
Just keep raising that bar, soon it will be that they cannot donate to a certain political party, attend a church you don't like, eat at an establishment you don't like, and on and on and on. All because you want to feel offended. Fine feel offended and suck it up. If it has an effect on your work based on what other do legally in their free time its your problem not theirs. This world isn't about having everything we want.
- dalanmiller 13y ago
  I get your rationale, and where this conversation goes towards infinity but I don't think most people take it to that extent although that is always the 'fearful' rebuttal. I don't want to feel offended, but it just seems like it would be hard to promote a "culture of inclusiveness" as the CEO given prior actions.
- dalke 13y ago
  "Soon"? All of those have long been sufficient criteria for some, and there's no "raising the bar" going on. Some people will chose an establishment just because the owner is, or isn't, member of a specific church. An LGBT organization is unlikely to hire someone who walks in to the interview carrying a Chik-Fil-A lunch, or support another LGBT organization whose leader does the same. Here's a case of boycotting a store chain because the owners (not the corporation) supported a politician: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Joaquin-Castro-to-boycott-Buc-ee-s-after-owners-5307143.php http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Joaquin-Castr... People express their offense and outrage all the time, about all sorts of issues. Sometimes it gets traction. Most times it doesn't. The bar moves around, certainly, but that doesn't mean it ratchets higher. Few now call for boycotts of communist owned organizations and black-lists of communists like they did during the red scares.
alandarev 13y ago
That is a good and valid point. Interestingly, the opposite might hold as well - gay opposition would not work for a gay CEO. Wouldn't it be better if political opinions like that stayed private, so that people can work with each other?
- dalanmiller 13y ago
  Ideally, probably. But as humans I don't believe we can always leave 100% of us at the door, and it seems unrealistic to switch from one human to another just because our physical space changes.
- Drakim 13y ago
  People who are opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage can simply not be homosexual and not get a gay marriage. They can literally throw their hands up in the air and say "I don't want any part of this topic" and go on with their life, ignoring it. Just like how somebody who isn't for interracial marriage can simply marry a person of their own race, or somebody who isn't for marriage at all can simply not get married. Gay people don't have that luxury, because the issue being discussed concerns their actual personal rights. Wether it's gay marriage, adoption or anti-soddomy laws, it's things that affect them no matter if they want to be part of the debate or not. They cannot throw up their arms and go on with their life, because they can now not get married, not adopt children, and so on. It's easy to say that they should keep their private life out of politics, but politics has forced their private life into the spotlight.
puppetmaster3 13y ago
Help me for real with that logic in this example: Should straights be upset working for Apple?

puppetmaster3 13y ago

just fyi, I got -4 down votes by the moderators for this opinion. congrats to HN moderators.

dang 13y ago
First, please re-read what the HN guidelines say about not complaining when you're downvoted. Second, you are mistaken. Your comments' negative scores are because users, not moderators, downvoted you. Moderators don't have special downvoting powers.