8 ms·

I wonder - did they check his political donations?

by jasoncartwright 13y ago

honksillet 13y ago
He'll be fine as long as he toes the thought police orthodoxy line.
- jimktrains2 13y ago
  How is it thought police for the community around an organization to not want the organization to have a CEO that is diametrically opposed to the beliefs of many in community?
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Huh? Isn't that the very definition of thought police? To get you inline with the beliefs of "many in the community"?
    - jimktrains2 13y ago
      Because this is about something he _did_ not something he thinks? > It is the job of the Thought Police to uncover and punish thoughtcrime and thought-criminals. > thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party Note the unspoken part of that definition. Eich took steps, actual steps, not even just speech, to limit the rights of other people. That's why it's not thought police. Treating people with less dignity than someone else is a _huge_ thing, this isn't just a petty political issue. The Mozilla community, a private group of individuals, raise many concerns that someone willing to limit the dignity afforded to certain groups of people through actual actions that person has taken was not fit to be the head of their organization. How is that thoughtpolice EDIT: Downvotes without comments do so much to move the conversation forward, thanks!
      - coldtea 13y ago
        >Note the unspoken part of that definition. Eich took steps, actual steps, not even just speech, to limit the rights of other people. That's why it's not thought police. The "actual steps" were his democratic rights as a citizen in a free country. It was a matter put to vote, and he backed a specific outcome of the vote. Neither the vote was illegal, not he acted on anything outside of that. Just because you think other people should "obviously have that right" doesn't say anything. I think that people should have the right to consume whatever drug they want freely, and that they should have the right to not be executed by the state. Are all persons who voted / backed laws against those things oppresive, or it's only your particular pet cause?
        jimktrains2 13y ago
        > The "actual steps" were his democratic rights as a citizen in a free country And he didn't get sent to jail for doing so. He was told by a private group of individuals that his actions and views were not welcomed by said group. Noöne was jailed or oppressed or dehumanized. > Are all persons who voted / backed laws against those things oppresive, or it's only your particular pet cause? Yes, anyone who acts to reduce the dignity of another human is oppressive. Gay marriage is only one such issue.
  - masterleep 13y ago
    How is it not?
    - jimktrains2 13y ago
      Because this is about something he _did_ not something he thinks? > It is the job of the Thought Police to uncover and punish thoughtcrime and thought-criminals. > thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party Note the unspoken part of that definition. Eich took steps, actual steps, not even just speech, to limit the rights of other people. That's why it's not thought police. Treating people with less dignity than someone else is a _huge_ thing, this isn't just a petty political issue. The Mozilla community, a private group of individuals, raise many concerns that someone willing to limit the dignity afforded to certain groups of people through actual actions that person has taken was not fit to be the head of their organization. How is that thoughtpolice?
wwwwwwwwww 13y ago
it's likely all candidate higher-ups in mozilla will be required to reveal all past political affiliations to make sure their beliefs don't conflict with mozilla values such as acceptance and tolerance of people of differing opinions/backgrounds.
- SolarNet 13y ago
  It's not about differing opinions, it's about actions which exclude and/or oppress people. It's one thing to campaign for the republican party, or donate money to them. That's not a problem. The problem is donating money to oppress a portion of the population based on their beliefs. That is an action, not a belief.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >It's not about differing opinions, it's about actions which exclude and/or oppress people. Well, for me the Republican party excludes and oppresses people. If MANY MANY more ways than banning gay marriage ever did. From starting all those wars under false pretexes that resulted to tens of thousands of casualties to everyday issues like health coverage. Should we fire every CEO/CTO that's donated to it? Or is it only an "action which excludes and/or opresses people" if you specifically disagree with it? (Oh, and I don't have than much better an opinion on the Democrats either, just think the Reps are like a few percentage points worse -- plus it would get more people to agree with my statement).
    - zorpner 13y ago
      The point here is that "we" did not fire anyone. Members of the Mozilla community expressed an opinion that they didn't want a CEO who had previously acted to restrict the rights of a particular group. Some expressed this by ceasing their use of Mozilla products, and some of those people also encouraged others to do the same. Mozilla (and Eich) decided that this expression from the community was sufficient for Eich to step down as CEO. No one forced them to do it, much like no one forced them to make Eich CEO in the first place. This is exactly how public dialogue is supposed to work. If you find that a particular executive at a company has taken actions you disagree with and this upsets you to the degree that you wish to stop using their products, you're free to do so. You're also free to talk to others and encourage them to do the same. The company is free to retain that executive or remove them depending on how they feel about the public outcry you've raised. This is free speech and public dialogue. It's people deciding what products they want to use and talking about it. It's companies deciding what to do based on what's good for them and their objectives. Which one of those things do you object to?
tbrooks 13y ago
Any donation >$250 to a candidate's committee is required to be disclosed to the FEC. It's also searchable here: www.fec.gov
- SilasX 13y ago
  FWIW, Eich's donation was not to a candidate's committee, but to that of a ballot proposition.
  - tbrooks 13y ago
    Yep, should've made that clear in my original comment.
cookiecaper 13y ago
Indeed. Hopefully his past beliefs are aligned with whichever opinion the mob adopts next.

I wonder - did they check his political donations?

honksillet 13y ago

He'll be fine as long as he toes the thought police orthodoxy line.

jimktrains2 13y ago
How is it thought police for the community around an organization to not want the organization to have a CEO that is diametrically opposed to the beliefs of many in community?
- coldtea 13y ago
  Huh? Isn't that the very definition of thought police? To get you inline with the beliefs of "many in the community"?
  - jimktrains2 13y ago
    Because this is about something he _did_ not something he thinks? > It is the job of the Thought Police to uncover and punish thoughtcrime and thought-criminals. > thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party Note the unspoken part of that definition. Eich took steps, actual steps, not even just speech, to limit the rights of other people. That's why it's not thought police. Treating people with less dignity than someone else is a _huge_ thing, this isn't just a petty political issue. The Mozilla community, a private group of individuals, raise many concerns that someone willing to limit the dignity afforded to certain groups of people through actual actions that person has taken was not fit to be the head of their organization. How is that thoughtpolice EDIT: Downvotes without comments do so much to move the conversation forward, thanks!
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >Note the unspoken part of that definition. Eich took steps, actual steps, not even just speech, to limit the rights of other people. That's why it's not thought police. The "actual steps" were his democratic rights as a citizen in a free country. It was a matter put to vote, and he backed a specific outcome of the vote. Neither the vote was illegal, not he acted on anything outside of that. Just because you think other people should "obviously have that right" doesn't say anything. I think that people should have the right to consume whatever drug they want freely, and that they should have the right to not be executed by the state. Are all persons who voted / backed laws against those things oppresive, or it's only your particular pet cause?
      - jimktrains2 13y ago
        > The "actual steps" were his democratic rights as a citizen in a free country And he didn't get sent to jail for doing so. He was told by a private group of individuals that his actions and views were not welcomed by said group. Noöne was jailed or oppressed or dehumanized. > Are all persons who voted / backed laws against those things oppresive, or it's only your particular pet cause? Yes, anyone who acts to reduce the dignity of another human is oppressive. Gay marriage is only one such issue.
- masterleep 13y ago
  How is it not?
  - jimktrains2 13y ago
    Because this is about something he _did_ not something he thinks? > It is the job of the Thought Police to uncover and punish thoughtcrime and thought-criminals. > thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party Note the unspoken part of that definition. Eich took steps, actual steps, not even just speech, to limit the rights of other people. That's why it's not thought police. Treating people with less dignity than someone else is a _huge_ thing, this isn't just a petty political issue. The Mozilla community, a private group of individuals, raise many concerns that someone willing to limit the dignity afforded to certain groups of people through actual actions that person has taken was not fit to be the head of their organization. How is that thoughtpolice?

wwwwwwwwww 13y ago

it's likely all candidate higher-ups in mozilla will be required to reveal all past political affiliations to make sure their beliefs don't conflict with mozilla values such as acceptance and tolerance of people of differing opinions/backgrounds.

SolarNet 13y ago
It's not about differing opinions, it's about actions which exclude and/or oppress people. It's one thing to campaign for the republican party, or donate money to them. That's not a problem. The problem is donating money to oppress a portion of the population based on their beliefs. That is an action, not a belief.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >It's not about differing opinions, it's about actions which exclude and/or oppress people. Well, for me the Republican party excludes and oppresses people. If MANY MANY more ways than banning gay marriage ever did. From starting all those wars under false pretexes that resulted to tens of thousands of casualties to everyday issues like health coverage. Should we fire every CEO/CTO that's donated to it? Or is it only an "action which excludes and/or opresses people" if you specifically disagree with it? (Oh, and I don't have than much better an opinion on the Democrats either, just think the Reps are like a few percentage points worse -- plus it would get more people to agree with my statement).
  - zorpner 13y ago
    The point here is that "we" did not fire anyone. Members of the Mozilla community expressed an opinion that they didn't want a CEO who had previously acted to restrict the rights of a particular group. Some expressed this by ceasing their use of Mozilla products, and some of those people also encouraged others to do the same. Mozilla (and Eich) decided that this expression from the community was sufficient for Eich to step down as CEO. No one forced them to do it, much like no one forced them to make Eich CEO in the first place. This is exactly how public dialogue is supposed to work. If you find that a particular executive at a company has taken actions you disagree with and this upsets you to the degree that you wish to stop using their products, you're free to do so. You're also free to talk to others and encourage them to do the same. The company is free to retain that executive or remove them depending on how they feel about the public outcry you've raised. This is free speech and public dialogue. It's people deciding what products they want to use and talking about it. It's companies deciding what to do based on what's good for them and their objectives. Which one of those things do you object to?

tbrooks 13y ago

Any donation >$250 to a candidate's committee is required to be disclosed to the FEC. It's also searchable here: www.fec.gov

SilasX 13y ago
FWIW, Eich's donation was not to a candidate's committee, but to that of a ballot proposition.
- tbrooks 13y ago
  Yep, should've made that clear in my original comment.

cookiecaper 13y ago

Indeed. Hopefully his past beliefs are aligned with whichever opinion the mob adopts next.