quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But I was responding to a post of yours saying that doesn't happen, BB. If you meant 'nobody reasonable would take them seriously', that would be one thing (though plenty of people otherwise regarded as reasonable *do* become positively hysterical on that subject), but you said no one did that.
If that was an incomplete thought, no big deal. If it was, however, it would seem to me that it points to the sort of unconscious partisan blinders others have spoken about.
Rakeesh: I'm not sure what you are saying.
I'm restating the argument I made previously that there are many many political positions one could take that opponents would find monstrous. And insisting that support for Prop 8 is objectively somehow a more serious offense than say supporting PP to me makes no sense.
Or put simply, if you demand a CEO resign for supporting Prop 8, you should have no problem with others demanding your resignation if you support pro-choice institutions, or if you supported the war in Iraq by reelecting Bush. In which case, we should all be demanding each others' jobs be terminated, and boycotting each others' businesses constantly.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, you seem to be saying that all political positions are equally good and benign. This may be the problem. If you really see support for any position as equally okay, it is no wonder that you would be against condemning such support.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Dogbreath: Mozilla's FAQ notes that Eich stepped down as a result of pressure. He could not remain as CEO and Mozilla survive. He felt forced to resign because absent the public pressure including Mozilla employees he would have stayed on.
From the very link you provided: "On April 3, 2014 Brendan Eich voluntarily stepped down as CEO of Mozilla."
and:
"Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation. The Board acted in response by inviting him to remain at Mozilla in another C-level position. Brendan declined that offer. The Board respects his decision."
Unless you have a source which Eich disagrees with that and says he was "forced" to resign, or even felt forced, then it appears that he indeed stepped down voluntarily. That is indisputable, and it's again very weird you keep insisting - still almost 2 years later - that he was forced to resign absent any evidence to support that claim and a lot of evidence that refutes it. Resigning after feeling you can't do your job effectively, absent any request or threat from your employer, is NOT a firing or forced resignation.
quote:Probably because I never said that. I said that employees publicly clamoring for a CEOs resignation without using the internal apparatus to voice grievances, is a witch hunt.
What evidence do you have they didn't also use the "internal apparatus to voice grievances"? And why is publicly disapproving of your boss a "witch hunt"?
I mean, they're free to speak freely about this dissatisfaction with their boss. That's not a witch hunt (like, say, a congressional committee to root out communists or using doctored Planned Parenthood videos to try and spin a false narrative about an organization to congress), Eich's actions were known and well documented. And Mozilla employees, as far as I'm aware, protested things he actually did. As far as I know, nobody made up allegations about him or accused him of anything he didn't, in fact, do. So where's the "witch hunt" exactly?
Mozilla is also presumably free to fire their employees for speaking bad about their CEO. It took some guts to stand up and say "hey, I don't want my company to be led by a bigot" when it's entirely possible you could just be terminated for it.
You're basically back to the same argument: using absurd standards to police any disagreement with certain political causes. You may as well call black folks sitting at lunch counters in the 50s and 60s a "witch hunt" because they didn't just formally complain to the owner of the restaurant and leave it at that. You can't just accuse anyone using means outside of the most strictly authoritarian and conformist to express discontent or disapproval of injustice of going on a "witch hunt" - that's not what the term means.
quote:I said,
"...Expressing concerns is a very normal productive thing. Calling for somebody's resignation on a social media site is not an appropriate way to express concerns with your company's choice in CEOs, even if your concern is legitimate (In this case I don't think it is). If you can, you speak to the person privately. If you can't you apply upward pressure by speaking to your manager and having them relay your concerns down the chain. You circulate a petition within the office, secure signatures, and then send it up.
But it would be inappropriate to call for somebody's resignation purely on the strength of one political position. Was Mr. Eich failing to do the job? Was he disparaging other employee's beliefs? Was he trying to get employees to take a position on that issue? No, he was doing his job. He was asked to be CEO. They didn't ask him to resign when his donation was made public years ago."
Oh come on, if you were a black person and your company appointed a CEO who was openly a member of the KKK and a committed supporter of Jim Crow laws (in a hypothetical universe where they were still a thing in much of the country), would you really just assume that you would be safe from discrimination? Or would you, if you felt courageous, protest your company appointing someone who had dedicated support towards oppressing, disenfranchising, and harming you?
You calling it merely "one political position" is where you seem to be blind on this issue. It's a human rights issue. Eich supported depriving an entire class of people of their civil rights, both with his time and money. I would absolutely be concerned about someone like him leading a company and question whether he was capable of treating gay people with respect, fairness, and dignity considering his contempt for them. And I would be *very* worried about him leading and being the face of my company, especially if I were a gay person. Again, I wouldn't call that legitimate concern for my own career and job security a "witch hunt."
quote:edit: I *do* have a problem with people elevating one political issue as sacrosanct and therefore justifying lots of actions they would never condone were other similar ethical issues at stake. For example, nobody would demand a CEO's resignation because they donated to Planned Parenthood, therefore he/she has aided and abetted the murder of human beings.
You seem to be baffled by Rakeesh's response to this, so let me quote it again, you said "For example, nobody would demand a CEO's resignation because they donated to Planned Parenthood".
That's ludicrously incorrect. People routinely and vociferously boycott entire companies that support Planned Parenthood. Heck, in your own city there was a mass shooting at a PP clinic, which is a level of protest that goes *way* beyond using social media to call for someone's resignation. Planned Parenthood is one of, if not THE, the most reviled, protested against organization in the U.S.
quote: I'm restating the argument I made previously that there are many many political positions one could take that opponents would find monstrous. And insisting that support for Prop 8 is objectively somehow a more serious offense than say supporting PP to me makes no sense.
I think you're missing the point if you're calling it an "offense." This isn't a trial, we're not talking about people being punished for crimes, so nobody has made that comparison except for you. And no, I don't think supporting the rights of people to speak out against what they perceive to be injustice - whether that's PP or NOM - is somehow inconsistent. And likewise, if people were shooting up NOM headquarters or doctoring videos about NOM to present to a congressional hearing, I would ABSOLUTELY oppose that. As would anyone else here. Why are you assuming otherwise?
quote:Or put simply, if you demand a CEO resign for supporting Prop 8, you should have no problem with others demanding your resignation if you support pro-choice institutions, or if you supported the war in Iraq by reelecting Bush.
I never supported the war in Iraq and I never voted for Bush, but I have no problem with someone online asking me to resign my job for supporting pro-choice institutions. (not that I do financially) My response would be "lol, no thanks" and I would keep my job, but they're certainly free to object to me doing so.
Then again, I've actually been protested before on several occasions by people who I'm sure would have been very happy if I was unemployed, or at least elsewhere employed. In one place they threw rocks (which is not OK IMO), everywhere else they just held signs outside the main gate and yelled stuff. I just put on my big boy pants, smiled and pretended they were paparazzi and ignored them. I don't consider free expression to be tyranny.
quote:In which case, we should all be demanding each others' jobs be terminated, and boycotting each others' businesses constantly.
How on Earth does this follow from your previous statement? Just because I have no moral objection to being boycotted or protested doesn't mean I *should* be protesting or boycotting anyone. You're not making any sense here.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BB, you seem to be saying that all political positions are equally good and benign. This may be the problem. If you really see support for any position as equally okay, it is no wonder that you would be against condemning such support.
That's not what I want to say. I'm only cautioning against elevating a position unduly high.
Dogbreath:
quote:From the very link you provided: "On April 3, 2014 Brendan Eich voluntarily stepped down as CEO of Mozilla."
and:
"Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation. The Board acted in response by inviting him to remain at Mozilla in another C-level position. Brendan declined that offer. The Board respects his decision."
Unless you have a source which Eich disagrees with that and says he was "forced" to resign, or even felt forced, then it appears that he indeed stepped down voluntarily. That is indisputable, and it's again very weird you keep insisting - still almost 2 years later - that he was forced to resign absent any evidence to support that claim and a lot of evidence that refutes it. Resigning after feeling you can't do your job effectively, absent any request or threat from your employer, is NOT a firing or forced resignation.
It's a very neat and tidy way so that Mozilla can say "We did everything we could to include Eich, but we respect his wishes." Why would Eich accept a CEO position and then resign weeks later? Why not look at his own remarks?
“Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader.”
It seems very unlikely he was saying he was unqualified, lacked relevant experience, or was otherwise physically unable to do the job. So why can't he be an effective leader? Because Mozilla's employees, customers, and others want him to leave.
"What evidence do you have they didn't also use the "internal apparatus to voice grievances"? And why is publicly disapproving of your boss a "witch hunt"?"
I don't, but they certainly didn't say they tried to work this out internally first. When you go public, the onus is typically on you to demonstrate other avenues were tried. When did I say disapproving of one's boss is a witch hunt? I would say looking up people's political donations as a means to find notable people who you could then publicly criticize is witch hunting. Which is essentially what Mozilla said CREDO and others did.
A witch hunt doesn't have to be based entirely off trumped up charges. During the Cultural Revolution, former land owners, vocal opponents of the CCP, and intellectuals were hunted down and punished by civilian courts.
quote:Mozilla is also presumably free to fire their employees for speaking bad about their CEO. It took some guts to stand up and say "hey, I don't want my company to be led by a bigot" when it's entirely possible you could just be terminated for it.
I'm sure it did take guts. It was still wrong. Something being difficult doesn't make it more right in my opinion.
quote: You're basically back to the same argument: using absurd standards to police any disagreement with certain political causes.
I find this incredibly jarring. I'm saying people shouldn't punish other people for believing differently than them. And I'm accused of tone policing. You are advocating for chasing somebody out of a job but that's not action policing, and somehow preferable?
quote:Oh come on, if you were a black person and your company appointed a CEO who was openly a member of the KKK and a committed supporter of Jim Crow laws (in a hypothetical universe where they were still a thing in much of the country), would you really just assume that you would be safe from discrimination?
That's not a fair comparison, and I think you would realize that if you reflected on it. But let's grant your KKK CEO. If that same CEO publicly stated, "I personally feel that the races would flourish better if given their own space, but as CEO of Integration Inc I promise I will represent and uphold the values that Integration Inc has championed and promotes, including integration and inclusion.
So long as his behavior reflected that commitment (And it was an commitment Eich made) I would wait and see.
quote:You calling it merely "one political position" is where you seem to be blind on this issue. It's a human rights issue. Eich supported depriving an entire class of people of their civil rights, both with his time and money.
I seriously doubt Eich would see the issue that way. And (I'm really not interested in defending Prop 8 beyond these brief remarks) many supporters of Prop 8 were not interested in denying people civil rights so much as securing a hallowed place for marriage within the context of state's have self-determination on the issue.
We already (I think) agree that there needed to be a unified federal standard precisely because we can't have California not recognizing Washington State's same-sex marriages. And the ultimate effect of Prop 8 was denying people their civil rights. But just because something results in X, doesn't mean everybody supporting it had X in mind when they voted for it. They may have been thinking about Y and Z and wondering how to accomplish those things.
quote:You seem to be baffled by Rakeesh's response to this, so let me quote it again, you said "For example, nobody would demand a CEO's resignation because they donated to Planned Parenthood".
That's ludicrously incorrect. People routinely and vociferously boycott entire companies that support Planned Parenthood. Heck, in your own city there was a mass shooting at a PP clinic, which is a level of protest that goes *way* beyond using social media to call for someone's resignation. Planned Parenthood is one of, if not THE, the most reviled, protested against organization in the U.S.
Let me rephrase. My point isn't whether PP is or is not protested. It's that I don't see anybody here demanding the firing of a CEO for *any* other issue. Not abortion, not going to war, not wealth disparity, not environmentalism, not anything. I don't think I've ever seen anybody here claim that a CEO should be fired because of a political donation.
Voting for the war in Iraq meant hundreds of thousands of people died, and that's a truck load of civil rights being violated is it not?
But Eich was fired, and nobody here seems to care one bit. I frankly can only seem to chalk it up to, he supported a position that is presently very unpopular so he deserves to be punished for it.
quote:I think you're missing the point if you're calling it an "offense." This isn't a trial, we're not talking about people being punished for crimes
If you have determined that a person doing one thing deserves an active response from you, then yes you are putting them on trial within your court of opinion.
quote:And likewise, if people were shooting up NOM headquarters or doctoring videos about NOM to present to a congressional hearing, I would ABSOLUTELY oppose that. As would anyone else here. Why are you assuming otherwise?
I have no doubt that were any group of people using violence to accomplish their agenda, we would all agree it is deplorable.
quote:I never supported the war in Iraq and I never voted for Bush, but I have no problem with someone online asking me to resign my job for supporting pro-choice institutions. (not that I do financially) My response would be "lol, no thanks" and I would keep my job, but they're certainly free to object to me doing so.
But how would you feel if groups of people all organized to get you fired. What if your IP addresses were tracked and websites greeted you with, "We detect this IP belongs to Dogbreath who supports odious position X, we'd really prefer he stay away from our websites." Lots of other employees were fielding hundreds and thousands of phone calls from angry customers and writers who think it's terrible your employer retains you. Nobody has asked you to leave, in reality it would be illegal for them to, but you sense that everybody (including the company you helped create) would be so much happier if you resigned. You wouldn't in the very least feel like you had an obligation to quit?
quote:Then again, I've actually been protested before on several occasions by people who I'm sure would have been very happy if I was unemployed, or at least elsewhere employed. In one place they threw rocks (which is not OK IMO), everywhere else they just held signs outside the main gate and yelled stuff. I just put on my big boy pants, smiled and pretended they were paparazzi and ignored them. I don't consider free expression to be tyranny.
So sorry you had to endure that. Look, I didn't call what happened to Eich, Tyranny (At least I don't think I did). I didn't say it should be illegal. I didn't say everybody should think like I do.
quote:How on Earth does this follow from your previous statement? Just because I have no moral objection to being boycotted or protested doesn't mean I *should* be protesting or boycotting anyone.
Maybe you should take a position on whether Eich should have been pressured to resign over his donation to Prop 8. I've said no. Are you saying yes?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BB, you seem to be saying that all political positions are equally good and benign. This may be the problem. If you really see support for any position as equally okay, it is no wonder that you would be against condemning such support.
That's not what I want to say. I'm only cautioning against elevating a position unduly high.
I don't know what you mean by that.
quote:
quote: You're basically back to the same argument: using absurd standards to police any disagreement with certain political causes.
I find this incredibly jarring. I'm saying people shouldn't punish other people for believing differently than them. And I'm accused of tone policing. You are advocating for chasing somebody out of a job but that's not action policing, and somehow preferable?
Here is an example I mean by acting as if all positions are equal. "Believing differently" makes it seem like a simple matter of choice. He prefers red to blue. He believed something wrong and damaging to people and acted to put those beliefs into action that hurt people.
quote:
quote:You calling it merely "one political position" is where you seem to be blind on this issue. It's a human rights issue. Eich supported depriving an entire class of people of their civil rights, both with his time and money.
I seriously doubt Eich would see the issue that way.
And he would be wrong not to see it that way.
quote: And (I'm really not interested in defending Prop 8 beyond these brief remarks) many supporters of Prop 8 were not interested in denying people civil rights so much as securing a hallowed place for marriage within the context of state's have self-determination on the issue.
And I'm sure that many folks thought Jim Crow was just about securing a hallowed place for white people. So?
quote: But Eich was fired, and nobody here seems to care one bit. I frankly can only seem to chalk it up to, he supported a position that is presently very unpopular so he deserves to be punished for it.
Here is is again. "Presently very unpopular". Geez, BB. Like the winds will change and his position would have been right? Eich's position is wrong and harmful and, thank God, it is presently unpopular.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: But Eich was fired
This is false. You know this is false. It's been shown to you, repeatedly, from both Mozilla and Eich's statements this is false. Why do you keep claiming something that isn't true?
Again, and I quote from your own source ""Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation."
You are making a claim that *directly* contradicts the Mozilla board of directors statement as well as Brendan Eich's own statement. You are calling them liars. You have provided no evidence he was, in fact, fired.
Firing is not resigning voluntarily. And you know this. It is difficult to continue discussing this issue with you in good faith when you are reaching near Lambertian levels of reality-denial.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Here is is again. "Presently very unpopular". Geez, BB. Like the winds will change and his position would have been right? Eich's position is wrong and harmful and, thank God, it is presently unpopular.
This is what I find so confounding about this position too, really. Denying people basic civil rights isn't "unpopular", it's wrong. It's immoral. The sort of nihilistic moral system necessary to view *all* morality as relative with right and wrong merely being facets of "popularity" is terrifying.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for interjecting, but I feel like I should state the obvious: the reason that BB seems sympathetic to SSM opponents is because they are, largely, his people: family members, church members. They believe(d) they were on the morally correct side because of deeply inculcated religious beliefs and highly immersive cultural influences that make it difficult to question or change those beliefs. BB understands the difficulty of standing up against that kind of influence, and it makes him sympathetic to [at least some] people who felt like opposing SSM was the right thing to do.
Me too. It's a hard* thing to ask of Mormons to go against their prophets. I don't think Mormons' support for Prop 8 or opposition to SSM was necessarily born out of anything approaching malice.
I think it's pretty understandable why he prefers conciliation and forgiveness to what happened to Eich, even though he is himself pro-SSM. Admittedly, he's overstated what happened to Eich, but I don't think there's anything particularly offensive or baffling about his general feelings on the matter.
*but correct, in this case
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
n.b. "The sort of nihilistic moral system necessary to view *all* morality as relative with right and wrong merely being facets of "popularity" is terrifying." Yeah...that's not really a fair restatement.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: But Eich was fired
This is false. You know this is false. It's been shown to you, repeatedly, from both Mozilla and Eich's statements this is false. Why do you keep claiming something that isn't true?
Again, and I quote from your own source ""Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation."
You are making a claim that *directly* contradicts the Mozilla board of directors statement as well as Brendan Eich's own statement. You are calling them liars. You have provided no evidence he was, in fact, fired.
Firing is not resigning voluntarily. And you know this. It is difficult to continue discussing this issue with you in good faith when you are reaching near Lambertian levels of reality-denial.
I shouldn't have said he was fired. I let that get away from me, and missed it in edits.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: n.b. "The sort of nihilistic moral system necessary to view *all* morality as relative with right and wrong merely being facets of "popularity" is terrifying." Yeah...that's not really a fair restatement.
It's not a restatement, in that it's not the moral system I believe BlackBlade adheres to at all. It is, if anything, a condemnation of a system of morality that always aligns with what is "in vogue", which is in itself (IMO) amoral. It's something I imagine BB and I actually agree on more than not.
I think that is quite distinct from having one's opinion changed after a popular movement confronts people's current beliefs. Like, I don't think the majority of people who changed their minds after the civil rights movement or the gay rights movement were doing so because of this. I imagine for most of them, rather, the popularity of the movement provided more opportunities for them to be confronted about their beliefs and change them, which is a change of heart rather than going with the flow. So I'm saying BB's suggestion that people find Eich's actions immoral simply because they are *unpopular* is in itself an unfairly harsh assessment of the morality of most of the people involved.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: OK. In response to the rest of your post then:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I don't, but they certainly didn't say they tried to work this out internally first. When you go public, the onus is typically on you to demonstrate other avenues were tried. When did I say disapproving of one's boss is a witch hunt? I would say looking up people's political donations as a means to find notable people who you could then publicly criticize is witch hunting. Which is essentially what Mozilla said CREDO and others did.
A witch hunt doesn't have to be based entirely off trumped up charges. During the Cultural Revolution, former land owners, vocal opponents of the CCP, and intellectuals were hunted down and punished by civilian courts.
See, this is where I think you are seeing what happened very differently. You see what happened as people *punishing* Eich for his actions.
That doesn't hold water with me. There are plenty of instances of people trying to punish others for their beliefs, like say that horrid "getting racists fired" tumblr, which you and I both equally condemn as vindictive and harmful. Eich worked for Mozilla for many years and was never punished for his beliefs.
What happened is people said they didn't want Eich representing Mozilla, and employees were (IMO legitimately) concerned about someone of his beliefs being a fair CEO. That has nothing to do with punishing the man for his beliefs, it has everything to do with saying those beliefs are unacceptable and that Eich was a terrible person to make the head and public face of the company. That isn't punishment, no more than being fired for incompetence is a punishment rather than an evaluation of "you don't meet up to expectations." (And in this case, some of those expectations are not having a boss who is openly bigoted)
quote:I find this incredibly jarring. I'm saying people shouldn't punish other people for believing differently than them. And I'm accused of tone policing. You are advocating for chasing somebody out of a job but that's not action policing, and somehow preferable?
Where have I advocated for it?
And that being said, as I explained above, there's all the world of difference between "chasing someone out of a job" and "being concerned about a bigoted CEO." One is a vindictive punishment, the other is an entirely valid concern both from a point of view of a a fair workplace and company image.
But have I advocated for it? No.
For that matter I didn't advocate for threatening KoM members, or rioting for that matter. Me saying "BlackBlade, I don't think you see this issue correctly" is not me saying "BlackBlade, I am advocating for exactly the extreme (mis)conception you have of what you are denouncing." That's a false dichotomy.
quote:That's not a fair comparison
What's unfair about it?
quote:, and I think you would realize that if you reflected on it. But let's grant your KKK CEO. If that same CEO publicly stated, "I personally feel that the races would flourish better if given their own space, but as CEO of Integration Inc I promise I will represent and uphold the values that Integration Inc has championed and promotes, including integration and inclusion.
So long as his behavior reflected that commitment (And it was an commitment Eich made) I would wait and see.
*shrugs* We're both in the safe and fortunate position of that not being the case. I choose not to police and demonize those who, when put in that position, use "inappropriate" means to peacefully protest it. You do.
quote:I seriously doubt Eich would see the issue that way. And (I'm really not interested in defending Prop 8 beyond these brief remarks) many supporters of Prop 8 were not interested in denying people civil rights so much as securing a hallowed place for marriage within the context of state's have self-determination on the issue.
As Kate said, very few bigots have oppression or hatred as their main objective. More often then not, as I've discussed at length in this thread, fear of those who are being oppressed is the main motivator. In this case, fear of what would happen to America if gay marriage was legalized.
It doesn't make it any less harmful or damaging or wrong.
quote:Let me rephrase. My point isn't whether PP is or is not protested. It's that I don't see anybody here demanding the firing of a CEO for *any* other issue.
It's been 2 years so I may be mistaken, but nobody here called for Eich's firing either.
As far as boycotting, though, I actively boycott a number of companies (including Old Navy, Nike, Wal*Mart, Apple Computers...) for various reasons and I've discussed those reasons here. I've never boycotted any company or called for anyone's resignation based on political donations.
quote:I have no doubt that were any group of people using violence to accomplish their agenda, we would all agree it is deplorable.
Ah, I thought you were comparing people's reaction to Eich's protest to people's condemnation of the PP videos and shooting, which are (IMO) Apples and Oranges. But I, and I don't think anyone else here, have ever condemned anyone for protesting or boycotting organizations or people who donate to Planned Parenthood.
quote:]But how would you feel if groups of people all organized to get you fired. What if your IP addresses were tracked and websites greeted you with, "We detect this IP belongs to Dogbreath who supports odious position X, we'd really prefer he stay away from our websites." Lots of other employees were fielding hundreds and thousands of phone calls from angry customers and writers who think it's terrible your employer retains you. Nobody has asked you to leave, in reality it would be illegal for them to, but you sense that everybody (including the company you helped create) would be so much happier if you resigned. You wouldn't in the very least feel like you had an obligation to quit?
Depends on what that position was. If I somehow climbed my way up to the position of CEO of a company and people protested something odious I had done/believe in, I would either:
A) Just completely ignore them. Haters gonna hate, right? B) Fire employees who joined in for insubordination, if it got out of hand or, C) Realize those beliefs, for better or worse, mean I would be a failure as a CEO and would damage the company, perhaps destroy it. In that case, I would resign and seek employment elsewhere.
Eich apparently chose C. Which is admirable. I've left jobs before where I didn't fit in, and honestly I chose not to pursue a career in the military and left active duty because of what I saw as fundamental philosophical and moral conflicts with most of my superiors - I didn't have any actual conflicts, but I saw some arising as I advanced in rank and would have more and more disagreements with things, so I left before it happened. I don't hold the military to blame for that. (though I wish I could have changed it more than I did)
quote:Maybe you should take a position on whether Eich should have been pressured to resign over his donation to Prop 8. I've said no. Are you saying yes? [/QB]
As I said in the other thread, I didn't participate in the Firefox boycott and did not call for his resignation. I don't personally believe in boycotting anyone for their beliefs or, to an extent, organizations they support. The only things I boycott really involve child labor and slavery, really. I've thought about expanding that, but to be honest I'm not the most educated person in that regard and need to work better on being a conscious consumer.
What I'm not comfortable with is drawing that line of "should" into condemning others for protesting immoral beliefs.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here is is again. "Presently very unpopular". Geez, BB. Like the winds will change and his position would have been right? Eich's position is wrong and harmful and, thank God, it is presently unpopular.
His position has never been right, but it is certainly more understandable within the context of the times he's living in, particularly with his generation.
Dogbreath:
quote:This is what I find so confounding about this position too, really. Denying people basic civil rights isn't "unpopular", it's wrong. It's immoral. The sort of nihilistic moral system necessary to view *all* morality as relative with right and wrong merely being facets of "popularity" is terrifying.
Since you know I don't believe popularity makes something right, let's just dispense with that discussion now. What I seem unable to convey to you is related to this comment below,
quote:I think that is quite distinct from having one's opinion changed after a popular movement confronts people's current beliefs. Like, I don't think the majority of people who changed their minds after the civil rights movement or the gay rights movement were doing so because of this. I imagine for most of them, rather, the popularity of the movement provided more opportunities for them to be confronted about their beliefs and change them, which is a change of heart rather than going with the flow. So I'm saying BB's suggestion that people find Eich's actions immoral simply because they are *unpopular* is in itself an unfairly harsh assessment of the morality of most of the people involved.
Go back to my discussions about new converts to Christianity. And how quick they were to see Buddhism and Taoism as idiotic and that adherents were stupid or willfully evil.
If we go back in time 5-15 years before Prop 8, we would see a dramatic change in popular opinion regarding gay marriage. This *doesn't* change rightness and wrongness. What it does demonstrate though is that only a short time ago, the vast majority of people in this country were on the wrong side of the issue (IMHO). Now as the years go by we are in the midst of a great awakening on this issue. Many of these people now clamoring for Eich's resignation were surely the same people who might have called a homosexual a 'fag' or voted to ban gay marriage had the issue come up earlier.
But they are quick to rage against a person who still agrees with their old position on gay marriage. They aren't just as militant about any other moral issue of major import.
That sort of eager to punish, and inconsistency in zeal feels like hypocrisy to me. Does nothing about it bother you?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: That sort of eager to punish, and inconsistency in zeal feels like hypocrisy to me. Does nothing about it bother you?
You ignored (or probably missed) my last post on this matter, but I think you're seeing "punishment" and vindictiveness as motivation where it doesn't exist. Saying "I don't want a bigot for a CEO" is not the same as saying "I want this guy, who happens to be my CEO, to be punished for his beliefs." Protests, in general, are usually not punitive. Me protesting Donald Trump's (hypothetical) presidency is not because I want to "punish" him by withholding the presidency from him - I don't care about punishing him. I just think he would do a terrible job.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that maybe some of the disconnect people are trying to remark on, BB, is a perceived split in benefit-of-the-doubt-giving. You remark on hypocrisy on the one hand, and while I disagree there is a case to be made; on the other hand you are pretty invested for finding not just understandable but laudable reasons for why someone might support and act in favor of a bigoted belief.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
As far as boycotting, though, I actively boycott a number of companies (including Old Navy, Nike, Wal*Mart, Apple Computers...) for various reasons and I've discussed those reasons here. I've never boycotted any company or called for anyone's resignation based on political donations.
OT, but why Old Navy? I've never heard of anything with them, and Google just tells me about an issue with a shirt they made. I'm assuming the rest are for their labor issues?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
As far as boycotting, though, I actively boycott a number of companies (including Old Navy, Nike, Wal*Mart, Apple Computers...) for various reasons and I've discussed those reasons here. I've never boycotted any company or called for anyone's resignation based on political donations.
OT, but why Old Navy? I've never heard of anything with them, and Google just tells me about an issue with a shirt they made. I'm assuming the rest are for their labor issues?
As I said, my list is hardly comprehensive or complete. There are probably companies I'm not actively boycotting that I should be, though usually before I buy anything now I do a quick search on the company's human rights records.
To help ameliorate this, I've bought almost all of my clothing (except socks, underwear, and undershirts which I buy from companies like SmartWool) second hand for the past 12 years.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think that maybe some of the disconnect people are trying to remark on, BB, is a perceived split in benefit-of-the-doubt-giving. You remark on hypocrisy on the one hand, and while I disagree there is a case to be made; on the other hand you are pretty invested for finding not just understandable but laudable reasons for why someone might support and act in favor of a bigoted belief.
*nods*
Whereas I think my argument, and Kate's, doesn't depend on assuming nefarious reasons on the part of bigots. I think it's entirely plausible Eich thought he was doing the right thing in putting his religious beliefs above his concern for human rights in supporting NOM... as the absolute extreme of that argument that sometimes gets brought up: I'm sure plenty of Nazi concentration camp guards thought they were doing the right thing in ridding Europe of Jews.
Ultimately it doesn't matter if your bigotry is gleeful* hatred of gay people or a sort of resigned, regretful decision to allow your conscience to be subsumed by the demands of your religion. The end result - the choice to treat gays as second class citizens, undeserving of the same treatment - is the same, and is just as wrong and damaging. That's not a judgement on the motivations of the person (which only God knows), it's a judgement of the end results of their actions: injustice.
And so you'll see me saying things like "his employees were justified in questioning his abilities to lead Mozilla" and "it's understandable to not want a bigot as the face of your organization" - I'm making no judgements of Eich's own motivations for his bigotry.
Whereas BB is judging those who protested Eich's bigotry, and that judgement of his absolutely depends on him assuming hypocrisy on the part of the protesters. It also depends on the assumption that they are doing so out of a motivation to punish rather than to protest or prevent injustice.
And that tendency, that tendency to assume nothing but the best intentions motivations by the oppressor, while simultaneously assuming hypocrisy and vindictiveness on the part of the oppressed and those who advocate for them, is absolutely unfair bias in favor of the oppressor.
It's the same mentality that leads people to ask "what was she wearing?" after a woman was raped, or say things like "maybe she shouldn't have led him on" or "she probably just regretted it the next morning" and assuming the woman raped is lying, confused, or asked for it while assuming nothing but the best intentions on the part of the rapist. It happens in almost any situation where you have a power imbalance you can think of, and it always plays out the same way.
*As in, approximately as ridiculously mustache-twirling villianesque as an anti-SSM person would be portrayed on the TV show "Glee."
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whereas BB is judging those who protested Eich's bigotry, and that judgement of his absolutely depends on him assuming hypocrisy on the part of the protesters. It also depends on the assumption that they are doing so out of a motivation to punish rather than to protest or prevent injustice.
Tell me one thing anybody did to try to reach out to Eich or reform his thinking. Give me one example of a time where Eich punished an employee for being gay or supporting SSM.
Tell me one other modern day executive/CEO who was pushed to resign from their jobs because they voted a certain way.
quote:It's the same mentality that leads people to ask "what was she wearing?" after a woman was raped, or say things like "maybe she shouldn't have led him on" or "she probably just regretted it the next morning" and assuming the woman raped is lying, confused, or asked for it while assuming nothing but the best intentions on the part of the rapist. It happens in almost any situation where you have a power imbalance you can think of, and it always plays out the same way.
I'd really rather not continue this conversation if we continue to compare my position to Nazi death camp guards and rapists. In fact it's probably that same mentality that compels people including you and me to only see how right we are.
If the people who chased out Eich are like Cultural Revolutionists, and Eich is like a Nazi death camp guard it's pretty easy to finish crafting an unalterable opinion of them.
I think there was a better way to engage with Eich, it appears you do not. I think Eich should have been permitted to retain his job and demonstrate he was serious about his pledge to promote Mozilla's corporate culture and values including celebrating a diverse workforce.
I don't believe that SSM being a civil rights issue makes it any more a moral issue than abortion, or going to war. I think it's very important, and I'll always support equality in civil rights for all people.
I would be appalled if an openly gay CEO had been pressed to resign from the company they founded because consumers, employees, and other companies were all angry they'd voted to establish SSM.
If the flip side feels wrong to me, then that strongly drives me to speak against Eich's departure.
But it feels like neither of us is making progress on helping the other see, appreciate, or understand the other's position. So perhaps we should just let the matter rest.
I think I understand that you feel I am being unduly harsh on those who spoke out against Eich, while covering a multitude of his sins in saying his vote for Prop 8 is morally defensible. I think I understand that you feel Prop 8 was an important enough issue that people were justified in not wanting to work for a person who strongly supported a ballot measure restricting SSM and allowing the state to determine what marriage means. I understand you think that when there is a power imbalance the more important party is the aggrieved and victimized, and you feel in this instance it's not Eich. I think I understand you believe I am unduly focused on the temperament, words, and actions of the marginalized when they act out against mistreatment.
Am I wrong about any of that?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I would be appalled if an openly gay CEO had been pressed to resign from the company they founded because consumers, employees, and other companies were all angry they'd voted to establish SSM.
If the flip side feels wrong to me, then that strongly drives me to speak against Eich's departure.
This, again, is where you make it seem like bad behavior and good behavior are the same and should be treated the same.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is this, Kate: you aren't arguing that objectively bad behavior should be treated differently than objectively good behavior, but that behavior you believe is bad should be treated different than behavior you believe is good.
Is it bad behavior to believe that same-sex marriage should remain illegal, strongly enough that you will give money to see that prevented? Who gets to decide that? And if it is, what bad behavior is justified in response?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, that would be a valid criticism if I were arguing with someone who thought that Prop 8 was a good thing. I didn't think I was, but I could be mistaken.
And the belief isn't the behavior, the action inspired by the belief is the bad behavior.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the belief isn't the behavior, the action inspired by the belief is the bad behavior.
But the action in Eich's case was literally giving money to a political campaign. Are we asserting that making a donation to a cause we don't agree with now constitutes bad behavior?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I'd really rather not continue this conversation if we continue to compare my position to Nazi death camp guards and rapists.
It is, as I stated, not a comparison, but an extreme example of the "intention makes everything ok" argument. I'm using a very famous example of that to try and show it's absurdity, I am very obviously not comparing your position to Nazi prison guards.
quote:I think there was a better way to engage with Eich, it appears you do not.
That is not only not true, but that requires you ignoring substantial parts of my previous posts to believe.
quote:I think Eich should have been permitted to retain his job and demonstrate he was serious about his pledge to promote Mozilla's corporate culture and values including celebrating a diverse workforce.
*sigh* I am close to tearing my hair out in frustration here BlackBlade.
Eich *was* permitted to retain his job. How in the world, after two years of this, do you not understand that? We've been over this over and over and over, and you keep reverting back to this. He chose to resign. Nobody fired him. Nobody on the board asked him to resign.
That is indisputable. That is not opinion, this is fact. You know it's a fact. You've acknowledged it's a fact. And yet you keep coming back to it. It is not true.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the belief isn't the behavior, the action inspired by the belief is the bad behavior.
But the action in Eich's case was literally giving money to a political campaign. Are we asserting that making a donation to a cause we don't agree with now constitutes bad behavior?
Depends on the cause. Why should donating money be different than other kinds of support for a cause, like carrying banners or attending a rally or occupying whatever?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To expand on my last post BlackBlade, the reason its so profoundly frustrating and disheartening that you keep deliberately portraying Eich's resignation as a firing when it wasn't, is that you are using it to completely warp what actually happened there and then say "this is what you're advocating for Dogbreath!" when it is so absurdly NOT. And you've repeatedly made claims, and then refused to substantiate those claims or address my refutation thereof, that I or anyone else here was calling for Eich being fired.
If you want to know my opinion, for example, on conducting a witch hunt to get people with unpopular opinions fired, I refer you to this thread. (Hint: it's something I have a dim view of)
You can't seem to grasp the difference between both employees and other companies voicing opposition and concerns to Mozilla appointing a bigot as their CEO, and that CEO subsequently resigning, and a vindictive campaign designed to get someone fired for having the wrong beliefs.
You keep going back to the "he should have been able to keep his job" line when we both know he *was* able to keep his job. By which you mean the man should not have felt pressured to quit.
But the only way for that pressure not to have existed is for people to have deliberately ignored his bigotry and *not* protested it. I know you'll say that's not quite what you're saying, but how else could those conditions not exist? Essentially, one way or the other, you are absolutely calling for curtailing and policing any expression of disagreement with bigotry because it might make the bigot in question uncomfortable. (Or at least, uncomfortable enough to personally decide he was no longer suited to lead an organization of people who disagreed with and distrusted him)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
not to get too embroiled in this mess or anything but i think there is some sort of unintentional mental hangup you are dealing with, blackblade, where you have accepted on some surface level that eich was not fired, but your brain isn't processing that understanding to the rest of the equations. your attitude towards the whole discussion remains sort of solidly predicated on the idea that eich was terminated from his job for his views.
there's also a pretty significant issue you are sort of dealing with about some sort of fairweatherness involving bigoted acts. You said "Give me one example of a time where Eich punished an employee for being gay or supporting SSM" - ignoring completely that it is problematic to assume we can actually even know if they've ever done this, since you can pretty much always dress it up as something else for H.R., you might as well say "give me one example of a time where Scalia punished a student for being black!"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, is carrying a banner bad behavior? You seem to be suggesting that any means of showing support for a cause you disapprove of is bad behavior and thus justifies an uncivil response.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:*sigh* I am close to tearing my hair out in frustration here BlackBlade.
Eich *was* permitted to retain his job. How in the world, after two years of this, do you not understand that? We've been over this over and over and over, and you keep reverting back to this. He chose to resign. Nobody fired him. Nobody on the board asked him to resign.
That is indisputable. That is not opinion, this is fact. You know it's a fact. You've acknowledged it's a fact. And yet you keep coming back to it. It is not true.
Dude. I don't know what to say to you anymore. I say people pressed him to resign, people such as customers, employees, and other companies, when they should have left him alone to actually do his job and then see if he couldn't. This comes across to you as me saying he was fired.
You can say all you want that he was not technically fired, but the fact remains he was forced out. Unless you want to give me a compelling reason for why he would take on a job as CEO and then just quit weeks later.
quote:To expand on my last post BlackBlade, the reason its so profoundly frustrating and disheartening that you keep deliberately portraying Eich's resignation as a firing when it wasn't, is that you are using it to completely warp what actually happened there and then say "this is what you're advocating for Dogbreath!" when it is so absurdly NOT. And you've repeatedly made claims, and then refused to substantiate those claims or address my refutation thereof, that I or anyone else here was calling for Eich being fired.
I have said he was fired, which I said was not true. But you keep giving me the impression that Eich's departure is completely unconnected to anybody else's actions other than his own.
If we could go back in time and make the customers, employees, and other companies like OKCupid disappear. Eich would probably be CEO right now, do you disagree with that? If you don't, please stop fighting me on Eich leaving because of external forces.
He wasn't fired, I get that. I'm sorry for not using precise language on that issue. But he *was* forced to leave IMHO, not by the board. OK, nobody here wanted him to be fired. But I'm not hearing anybody else saying he shouldn't have been fired, and you asked me to revisit this issue, which is why we are talking about this
quote:By which you mean the man should not have felt pressured to quit.
Yes, this is what I am saying.
quote:But the only way for that pressure not to have existed is for people to have deliberately ignored his bigotry and *not* protested it.
Or, you know, to say, "Hey I'm concerned this guy isn't going to be inclusive." Then when he says, "I'll be inclusive." To actually see how that goes, not presuppose you know he'll fail. Or since Eich had been at Mozilla for years before becoming CEO, show that there's a history of his being unfair to others because of their sexual orientation.
quote:Essentially, one way or the other, you are absolutely calling for curtailing and policing any expression of disagreement with bigotry because it might make the bigot in question uncomfortable.
No, I'm not. The position I'm advocating is designed to keep us *all* from becoming possible victims of having unpopular opinions or for voting a certain way. I have no problem with people having opinions that make others comfortable. I make people uncomfortable with my positions on this board constantly.
quote:You can't seem to grasp the difference between both employees and other companies voicing opposition and concerns to Mozilla appointing a bigot as their CEO, and that CEO subsequently resigning, and a vindictive campaign designed to get someone fired for having the wrong beliefs.
You can't seem to see why they are similar.
Let's stop talking about it for now. If I'm making you angry, it can only get in the way of meaningful discourse. I'm happy to let you have the last word. But I think I'm mostly done talking about this.
Samprimary:
quote:not to get too embroiled in this mess or anything but i think there is some sort of unintentional mental hangup you are dealing with, blackblade, where you have accepted on some surface level that eich was not fired, but your brain isn't processing that understanding to the rest of the equations. your attitude towards the whole discussion remains sort of solidly predicated on the idea that eich was terminated from his job for his views.
there's also a pretty significant issue you are sort of dealing with about some sort of fairweatherness involving bigoted acts. You said "Give me one example of a time where Eich punished an employee for being gay or supporting SSM" - ignoring completely that it is problematic to assume we can actually even know if they've ever done this, since you can pretty much always dress it up as something else for H.R., you might as well say "give me one example of a time where Scalia punished a student for being black!"
I get he was not fired, but he was still made to leave. It's definitely hard to demonstrate Eich acted unfairly towards people of SS orientation. For the reasons you stated. But in my mind the onus is on the person trying to get a person to leave to demonstrate a compelling case that it's deserved. If we leave it at, "Eich donated to Prop 8, and that's enough." It's not for me. Were that our standard, millions of people should be fired.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: By the way, I don't have any problem with Manny Pacquiao getting fired, either.
I don't think he was fired. I believe Nike withdrew their sponsorship. I don't have a problem with that either.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Kate, is carrying a banner bad behavior? You seem to be suggesting that any means of showing support for a cause you disapprove of is bad behavior and thus justifies an uncivil response.
Depends on what is on the banner. Supporting a cause I "disapprove of" is only bad behavior when I am in the right. Do I need to make the argument against Prop 8 here?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: By the way, I don't have any problem with Manny Pacquiao getting fired, either.
I don't think he was fired. I believe Nike withdrew their sponsorship. I don't have a problem with that either.
Why not? Pacquiao was just voicing an opinion that doesn't happen to be popular at the moment. As far as I know, he hasn't even taken any action other than expressing his opinion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: By the way, I don't have any problem with Manny Pacquiao getting fired, either.
I don't think he was fired. I believe Nike withdrew their sponsorship. I don't have a problem with that either.
Why not? Pacquiao was just voicing an opinion that doesn't happen to be popular at the moment. As far as I know, he hasn't even taken any action other than expressing his opinion.
Pacquiao's "job" for Nike is basically just representing them. His statements directly affects his job performance. The same can't necessarily be said for Eich.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: By the way, I don't have any problem with Manny Pacquiao getting fired, either.
I don't think he was fired. I believe Nike withdrew their sponsorship. I don't have a problem with that either.
Why not? Pacquiao was just voicing an opinion that doesn't happen to be popular at the moment. As far as I know, he hasn't even taken any action other than expressing his opinion.
I'm not sure why you are requiring me to describe the difference between not paying for somebody to market your goods anymore, and trying to force somebody to resign or be fired from their job.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
A big part of being CEO is being the "face" of a company. I don't think that anyone would have pressured the HR person or the 3rd secretary to the left or the accountant to resign.
Not paying someone to so something that you used to pay them to do is not all that different from firing them, is it?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I get he was not fired, but he was still made to leave. It's definitely hard to demonstrate Eich acted unfairly towards people of SS orientation. For the reasons you stated. But in my mind the onus is on the person trying to get a person to leave to demonstrate a compelling case that it's deserved. If we leave it at, "Eich donated to Prop 8, and that's enough." It's not for me. Were that our standard, millions of people should be fired.
what it ultimately comes down to is what an employee of the company might reasonably do, such as "feel uncomfortable enough with the personal beliefs of the CEO that they will elect of their own free will not to associate with the company as soon as they are able"
and what Eich did was poisonous to the company in a way they all knew was not really gonna work in that industry. Employees gay or non were gonna be draining out through free association. Eich opted to leave of his own volition rather than try to ride it out. All circumstances are ones that are hard to say was actually wrong.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A big part of being CEO is being the "face" of a company. I don't think that anyone would have pressured the HR person or the 3rd secretary to the left or the accountant to resign.
Not paying someone to so something that you used to pay them to do is not all that different from firing them, is it?
Seems incredibly different to me just as not buying a cheeseburger from Mcdonalds is way different from firing Phil who works at Mcdonalds.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't a bunch of people do the Mozilla equivalent of saying they weren't going to buy cheeseburgers at McDonald's because they were not comfortable with Phil?
I think, too, that you are underestimating Eich's power. He is not some guy making fries for minimum wage.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Didn't a bunch of people do the Mozilla equivalent of saying they weren't going to buy cheeseburgers at McDonald's because they were not comfortable with Phil?
I think, too, that you are underestimating Eich's power. He is not some guy making fries for minimum wage.
I don't think I ever said people shouldn't choose to stop buying a product if they don't like what a company is doing.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A big part of being CEO is being the "face" of a company. I don't think that anyone would have pressured the HR person or the 3rd secretary to the left or the accountant to resign.
Not paying someone to so something that you used to pay them to do is not all that different from firing them, is it?
Not necessarily. I don't know who the CEO of Nike is, but I know Lebron James and Michael Jordan represent them. I'm pretty sure I'm in the majority in that regard.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: It's a very neat and tidy way so that Mozilla can say "We dd everything we could to include Eich, but we respect his wishes." Why would Eich accept a CEO position and then resign weeks later? Why not look at his own remarks?
“Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader.”
It seems very unlikely he was saying he was unqualified, lacked relevant experience, or was otherwise physically unable to do the job. So why can't he be an effective leader? Because Mozilla's employees, customers, and others want him to leave.
Perhaps he believes that to be an effective CEO you need to have the trust and support of your employees and realized that he wouldn't have that trust and it would be very, very hard to gain it. Or perhaps he knew that everyone was going to be scrutinizing his decisions to see if he really was unbiased and he didn't want to work under that kind of scrutiny.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Dude. I don't know what to say to you anymore. I say people pressed him to resign, people such as customers, employees, and other companies, when they should have left him alone to actually do his job and then see if he couldn't. This comes across to you as me saying he was fired.
Nope. You said he should have been permitted to keep his job. He was.
quote:You can say all you want that he was not technically fired, but the fact remains he was forced out.
No he wasn't. He left of his own volition. That is, by definition, not being forced.
quote:Unless you want to give me a compelling reason for why he would take on a job as CEO and then just quit weeks later.
I take his own statement at face value:
"I have decided to resign as CEO effective today, and leave Mozilla. Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader."
He felt, given the circumstances, he would not be an effective leader. He at no point said "I have been forced to resign", and neither did Mozilla. Both he and Mozilla said he left of his own free will.
Once again, this "he was forced out" stuff is entirely conjecture on your part.
quote:I have said he was fired, which I said was not true. But you keep giving me the impression that Eich's departure is completely unconnected to anybody else's actions other than his own.
That is untrue. I never once even came close to implying that, much less saying that.
quote:If we could go back in time and make the customers, employees, and other companies like OKCupid disappear. Eich would probably be CEO right now, do you disagree with that?
Yes, absolutely. He's been pretty involved with getting Brave launched over the past year. (and for good reason: if it holds up to its promise, it may be a very important step in standardizing secure web browsers. This is incredibly important in the advent of malvertising exploit kits (like Angler) that use HTTP redirects from compromised ads as an attack vector) He may have delayed that somewhat, but I doubt he would still be acting as CEO of Mozilla given his passion for his current project.
But I'm not sure why alternative history is important to you in this context?
quote:If you don't, please stop fighting me on Eich leaving because of external forces.
I am not fighting you on that.
You have repeatedly said either Eich was fired, or Eich was forced out. I am telling you that you are wrong. I have never once said his decision to leave wasn't influenced by external "forces" or pressure from those protesting him, I am merely asserting it was his decision. By which I mean, he was not forced, and was not fired.
quote: But I'm not hearing anybody else saying he shouldn't have been fired
Nobody else is saying he shouldn't have been fired because he wasn't fired. How could they be saying something that didn't happen shouldn't have happened? That doesn't make any sense.
quote:
quote:By which you mean the man should not have felt pressured to quit.
Yes, this is what I am saying.
The only way you remove that pressure is by silencing the people who applied that pressure in the first place.
quote:No, I'm not. The position I'm advocating is designed to keep us *all* from becoming possible victims of having unpopular opinions or for voting a certain way. I have no problem with people having opinions that make others comfortable. I make people uncomfortable with my positions on this board constantly.
Becoming a victim of having an unpopular opinion? Again, being a bigot is just an unpopular opinion to you?
You're saying people shouldn't have made Eich uncomfortable by expressing their dislike of his beliefs and their dismay at the fact he was made CEO. You believe that those opinions somehow "forced" him to quit. (despite him and Mozilla saying he was not forced) You wish people had not expressed those opinions but instead given him the benefit of the doubt (why should he deserve that, but everyone who protested him must be a hypocrite?) after he was made CEO. And yet you also think people should be allowed to express those opinions and protest as well. That's a contradiction. Where do you draw the line, exactly?
quote:
quote:You can't seem to grasp the difference between both employees and other companies voicing opposition and concerns to Mozilla appointing a bigot as their CEO, and that CEO subsequently resigning, and a vindictive campaign designed to get someone fired for having the wrong beliefs.
You can't seem to see why they are similar.
OK, I'll bite. How are they similar?
quote:If we leave it at, "Eich donated to Prop 8, and that's enough." It's not for me. Were that our standard, millions of people should be fired.
Why? Eich wasn't fired. Why should anyone else be if that was our standard?
posted
Dogbreath: I hope you won't mind that I'm condensing our conversation down to what I perceive to be the fundamentals.
Eich's objective was to be CEO of Mozilla.
Other people's objectives was for Eich to not be CEO of Mozilla.
The ways for Eich to not be CEO are for him to be fired, to resign, or die. We'll ignore death.
The other people were demanding Eich be fired or made to resign. Yes?
Eich states that he wants to stay and will do his best to be inclusive.
The other people continue demanding Eich be fired or resign. No change in the tide of pressure. Yes?
Eich resigns.
Eich either resigned because of the pressure on him to leave (Forced to leave), or he resigned for some other reasons. It sounds like you agree Eich left because he was influenced by pressure, but that that isn't the whole story? Yes? Is it even the primary consideration in your mind?
quote:You have repeatedly said either Eich was fired, or Eich was forced out. I am telling you that you are wrong. I have never once said his decision to leave wasn't influenced by external "forces" or pressure from those protesting him, I am merely asserting it was his decision. By which I mean, he was not forced, and was not fired.
You can say over and over that Eich's decision was his to make, but that's like saying Sophie had a real choice between her two children, and nobody made her choose one over the other.
Had Eich stayed, the PR nightmare would have increased, Firefox would lose market share, something he created very likely would have died. If he resigned he had to leave a company he created, and couldn't help it survive and thrive against Chrome and IE.
He had two crappy options. Two choices he was *forced* to choose from. It certainly wasn't a choice he *wanted* to make.
If we can't get past this idea that you think he wasn't forced out, and I do, there's not much point continuing because fundamentally that informs the rest of the discussion.
posted
It's not as though Eich were strolling down the sidewalk, minding his own business, when bam! these two choices were thrust on him out of a clear blue sky. For that particular fork in the road to come up (and while i would not say he was forced out, I would agree that it was close, and I regard statements by him and Mozilla to the contrary as spin), *first* Eich had to not only hold a bigoted belief against homosexuals, he took real-world action to see that it was sustained.
Does that make it acceptable for people to apply pressure to get him to resign? Well, there's a fair argument about that, sure. But supporters of human rights for gays didn't somehow burrow into his mind and discover what he thought, they observed his tangible actions in the real world and then responded to that.
As to the question of giving Eich the benefit of the doubt...well. While that would be a very high-minded thing to do for a supporter of SSM, you appear to be claiming that it was somehow the moral thing for them to do-with the implication included whether you intend it or not that to not give him the benefit of the doubt is immoral.
My question for you is why? It Eich was willing to say, "I should have the right to determine which consenting adults *you* marry, based on whether I think it's gross or will destroy American families or God doesn't like it or whatever bullshit excuse I offer based on the fact that I don't consciously feel like a bigot on this issue therefore I must not be...anyway, I will spend money to discriminate against homosexuals in this way. But you should trust me that I won't discriminate against homosexuals in *other* ways."
Granted a healthy chunk of that hypothetical quote was me expressing my exhaustion and contempt with the oft-repeated claim "I'm not a bigot just because I think homosexuals shouldn't marry other homosexuals." But the other part of that, to a supporter of SSM much less an actual homosexual person who might want to marry the man or woman they love, why exactly should they take at face value the claim of someone who doesn't deny bigoted behavior on one hugely important aspect of life, and then insists their beliefs won't carry over into other elements?
Is it possible for someone to believe homosexuality is a sin or is gross or destroys families or whatever, yet also in the workplace to be fairminded and not prejudiced against homosexuals? Actually I do think that is possible, yes. Possible. But BB, why is the onus on the very people he is bigoted against and actually *acting* against in the world, and their supporters, to give him the benefit of the doubt on this question?
That's a serious question. I know, from years of hearing these discussions just as everyone else does, that many-most, even-opponents of SSM have a whole host of reasons as to why that belief isn't bigoted and that they aren't actually prejudiced against homosexuals. I also know that many, or even most opponents actually believe this themselves. They're not lying really, because they actually believe they aren't bigoted.
Well, fair enough. There are certainly degrees of this sort of thing, and not everyone who opposes SSM is Fred Phelps. Not even most of them, or very many. But the fact remains that, by giving money to a cause bigoted against homosexuals it can fairly be stated that Eich was a bigot towards homosexuals. That's harsh, especially since people can be bigoted in one area but very nice in others, but it's still true. So why, why, why is it reasonable to expect the very people he was bigoted against, and their supporters, to trust him? I'm not asking about trust in other issues. Support for Prop 8 doesn't mean he would steal, or be ineffective in terms of corporate strategy. But why is it fair to suggest they trust that he will treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace? He doesn't just not wish to support them elsewhere, he actively campaigned against them in their private lives.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
eich left the company because the industry he worked in is one in which there is still high enough demand for the labor of its workers that they have relatively high capacity to move between jobs at will within the industry, so much so that you can't get away with being a leader who takes political positions that alienate them and would cause a powerful exodus.
it's not like being the head of a box retail store or a pizza chain, where you're mostly able to be much more of a quite robustly bigoted garbagelord because you can work with economically exploitable demographics of desperate humans.
i suppose you could fix the "problem" of eich having to leave because he has destroyed the employee's rank-and-file faith in him ... by getting tech worker labor to be more in line with other industries in terms of keeping them sort of stuck through economic vulnerability. so moving that to a more gilded age model would work great. or i suppose you could deregulate industry more and allow real serious Salaryman-esque noncompetitiveness clauses that keep you Ke$ha'd to your current master.
or you could just accept that there is no not-insanely-problematic method for "correcting" that eich's problem was a problem of free association and that he left because his own bigotry made him unsuited to the post.
is this at all a thing that makes sense?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
like there is no way to correct the 'wrong' of what eich did without doing insanely weird shit like telling gay people "you can't just leave your job just because you found out that your boss wants you to be a second-class person. oh and your friends can't either"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair BB isn't say can't. But he does appear to be saying 'shouldn't have' until such time as Eich had led the company through a probationary period so to speak with regards to his treatment of homosexuals in the workplace. That's my understanding anyway, I could be misreading.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure that BB is just saying that people shouldn't have called for his ouster, but not proposing any actual mechanism by which their choice to do so would be at all constrained, other than awareness that some people disagree with them.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I'm pretty sure that BB is just saying that people shouldn't have called for his ouster, but not proposing any actual mechanism by which their choice to do so would be at all constrained, other than awareness that some people disagree with them.
Hmm. No, I don't think so.
Let's take that hypothesis: that he thinks it would be acceptable for gay people and their supporters to quit Mozilla so long as they do so *quietly*. Well then, you would still see a massive brain drain following Eich's appointment as well as a plummet in the company's performance, and someone would put 2-and-2 together and think "huh, Mozilla appointed a new CEO who literally thinks gay people are undeserving of the same basic human rights as everyone else, and they suddenly lost a whole bunch of people immediately after" and once again there would be pressure placed on Eich to resign. And BB has made it abundantly clear that he thinks that that pressure itself counts as forcing someone out of a job, and therefore this would be still be wrong and immoral.
The only way you could avoid that pressure from occurring is for said Mozilla employees not only to not say anything, but to also not leave the company, and continue working for a boss who has dedicated his time and money to making sure they are deprived of a basic human right. (But of course they should take his word that he will be completely impartial in his treatment of them)
Or in other words, by calling for the silence and marginalization of an oppressed minority so that one of the oppressors doesn't feel pressured to quit his job.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
