3 ms·

Hm. Your examples are good, but have one flaw, though: Both the NPD thing and the food bank example are cases in which the controversial act is, thematically, c

Hm. Your examples are good, but have one flaw, though: Both the NPD thing and the food bank example are cases in which the controversial act is, thematically, close to the professional role of the person in question. A politician should be scrutinized if he associates with radical political movements, just as a food bank representative can't foul-mouth the activities of the NGO she is heading. To construct an analogy regarding that Eich guy: It would of course be problematic if he was connected in some way to Microsoft or Oracle. Paid speaking engagements come to mind as an example.

icebraining 13y ago
I don't think she was criticizing the actions of the food bank; it was closer to an opinion on the country as a whole. When she said "we", she meant the whole population, not the members nor users of the organization. I think your point has some merit, but playing Devil's advocate, if one considers this an humans rights issue - which many people do -, isn't it close to every organization?
- sentenza 13y ago
  Oh, I misunderstood. Then that example is indeed an interesting counterpoint. You are of course right in that human rights issues are special. But there are also other human rights issues for which this could be done. The death penalty comes to mind. Also, Mozilla is a worlwide organization. Why does this become so important now, when the US has changed opinions on homosexuality? In some parts of the world, gay marriage has been accepted by the mainstream for years now and there are other parts of the world where it will not be acceptable for a very long time.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    You are of course right in that human rights issues are special. But there are also other human rights issues for which this could be done. The death penalty comes to mind. Sure, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar backlash had him donated to the campaign against Proposition 34. But how is that an argument against the current issue? Also, Mozilla is a worlwide organization. Why does this become so important now, when the US has changed opinions on homosexuality? In some parts of the world, gay marriage has been accepted by the mainstream for years now and there are other parts of the world where it will not be acceptable for a very long time. Because it was now that Mozilla elected a CEO who donated to a campaign against gay marriage? I don't get your point.

icebraining 13y ago

I don't think she was criticizing the actions of the food bank; it was closer to an opinion on the country as a whole. When she said "we", she meant the whole population, not the members nor users of the organization. I think your point has some merit, but playing Devil's advocate, if one considers this an humans rights issue - which many people do -, isn't it close to every organization?

sentenza 13y ago
Oh, I misunderstood. Then that example is indeed an interesting counterpoint. You are of course right in that human rights issues are special. But there are also other human rights issues for which this could be done. The death penalty comes to mind. Also, Mozilla is a worlwide organization. Why does this become so important now, when the US has changed opinions on homosexuality? In some parts of the world, gay marriage has been accepted by the mainstream for years now and there are other parts of the world where it will not be acceptable for a very long time.
- icebraining 13y ago
  You are of course right in that human rights issues are special. But there are also other human rights issues for which this could be done. The death penalty comes to mind. Sure, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar backlash had him donated to the campaign against Proposition 34. But how is that an argument against the current issue? Also, Mozilla is a worlwide organization. Why does this become so important now, when the US has changed opinions on homosexuality? In some parts of the world, gay marriage has been accepted by the mainstream for years now and there are other parts of the world where it will not be acceptable for a very long time. Because it was now that Mozilla elected a CEO who donated to a campaign against gay marriage? I don't get your point.