91–100 of 341 posts
In the same line, Brendan Eich. I completely disagree with his views on marriage of homosexuals, but disagree that it led him to have to quit his position at Mozilla Foundation.
another victim of the proponents of Liberty And Freedom. Who basically dont accept opinions different than theirs.
Expanding on one of the comments that might clear up what we're actually talking about (which wasn't made especially clear otherwise): >> "The Gorean philosophy promoted by Larry is based on the principle that women are evolutionarily predisposed to serve men and that the natural order is for men to dominate and lead." Even assuming this is Larry's philosophy, it is pretty much the same philosophy shared by many wome…
That said, there's a huge gap between a religion a person is imparted with as a child, and philosophy they chose as an adult and have jumped into with both feet.
Many people come from backgrounds with bigoted ideas like that, but they don't colour their daily lives with it because they're not actively married to the idea - it's just part of the box of stuff they grew up believing passively.
This, on the other hand, is an active choice. An active decision that women are our lessers. That's far more serious. I have a lot more trouble with the idea of politely ignoring somebody who actively evangelizes this kind of idea rather than being simply passively being raised with it.
Where do you draw the line? How far do you go in ignoring the fact that key people in your community are, to be blunt: hateful?
Marvel Comics recently fired an illustrator for hiding Islamist, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian references in his art. His ideas were "normal" in his country - should that have been ignored? Reprimanded as long as he kept his politics out of his art?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a truly personal matter that, in my opinion, bears no relevance to his public-facing leadership role and responsibilities. He's into BDSM, so what? If your PornHub/xHamster/whatever search history was exposed, how catastrophic would it be to your career? Would people that you respect immediately feign disgust, knowing very well that they have similar search histories? It's easy to point the finger when it's s…
> People are used to having their emotions exploited and being force fed specific facts sans context to steer their opinion and, at large, public consensus. It's worse than that. Many actually like it. Outrage is click bait because people like clicking on it. If you're reading it, it's for you. People like a good two minute hate. It creates all sorts of interesting sensations.
- Humanrebar, 2017
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Community leaders are "political activists" because they exclude members that don't hold their values? Don't most membership organizations (not to mention for-profit companies) work that way?
What values are you talking about? that's my point precisely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I honestly don't care about that even, as long as people can discuss their ideas and leave the group if they're done tolerating each other. Personally I'd agree with that, but analogous to being the employee of a company, it becomes a problem if off-topic distractions seep into the daily business, especially if these conflicts have a potential to escalate into the public view, and especially if the convictions in q…
I think tolerance, professionalism, and pragmatism all fit well together. Replacing tolerance with "tolerance"? The track record isn't strong. I don't follow the caveat for unethical behavior. Do you expect the organization to align to your ethics? Everyone is unethical to someone. The best we can hope for, I think, is to find a common ethic (no lying, no stealing, no verbal abuse, etc.) and agree to part ways respec…
Indeed, that's why I used the word ethics instead of morals ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The board can ask you to leave at any time if you seem to be a liability... It's worth noting that many of the objections are about private information being misused. Eich was actually outed from a donor list that was leaked. There's a lot of parallels here if the concern is about "doxxing" activities. I also have a really hard time with the "but CEOs are different argument". So could being a Democrat in a red stat…
> In other words, are we saying that only certain kinds of people can be CEOs? In short, yes. There are plenty of rational people out there who don't care what someone does in their private life as long as it doesn't have a readily apparent effect on business. It's a shame that all people cannot be like this, because there are others who take a hard line stance against certain private matter that someone else may hol…
In Eich's case, it wasn't a private matter. He used his money and influence to attempt to enforce his religious views on people who do not subscribe to his religion. When you are involving the government in public enforcement of your personal views, they are not personal any longer.
Make no mistake, inclusion and diversity at all costs is the new "religious" standard. Your personal beliefs do not matter. You will conform or you will suffer. (Vote down, that's fine, but it's still true.)
Make no mistake, inclusion and diversity at all costs is the new "religious" standard. Your personal beliefs do not matter. You will conform or you will suffer. (Vote down, that's fine, but it's still true.)
I've worked with pretty strict christians and muslims in the past without issue. As long as it remains in the private sphere I don't see why anybody would have issue with that. It's also interesting to challenge you world view from time to time, echo chambers are never a good thing for critical thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The board can ask you to leave at any time if you seem to be a liability... It's worth noting that many of the objections are about private information being misused. Eich was actually outed from a donor list that was leaked. There's a lot of parallels here if the concern is about "doxxing" activities. I also have a really hard time with the "but CEOs are different argument". So could being a Democrat in a red stat…
> In other words, are we saying that only certain kinds of people can be CEOs? In short, yes. There are plenty of rational people out there who don't care what someone does in their private life as long as it doesn't have a readily apparent effect on business. It's a shame that all people cannot be like this, because there are others who take a hard line stance against certain private matter that someone else may hol…
My question was about how much we cater to others' intolerance. It seems backward to me that we throw up our hands and accept that we'll, say, never have a fat president again because people just don't respect fat people. Or that a major political party should never nominate an out atheist because they are not electable (a self-fulfilling prophecy).
The silver lining to the Trump candidacy, I think, is that there is more tolerance of unconventional leadership than we have suspected. I swore up and down that Trump was unelectable.
Expanding on one of the comments that might clear up what we're actually talking about (which wasn't made especially clear otherwise): >> "The Gorean philosophy promoted by Larry is based on the principle that women are evolutionarily predisposed to serve men and that the natural order is for men to dominate and lead." Even assuming this is Larry's philosophy, it is pretty much the same philosophy shared by many wome…
This is where professionalism is important. Firmly separating your personal life and your professional life. That said, there's a huge gap between a religion a person is imparted with as a child, and philosophy they chose as an adult and have jumped into with both feet. Many people come from backgrounds with bigoted ideas like that, but they don't colour their daily lives with it because they're not actively married…
As long as holding that belief doesn't affect in any way his behaviour towards women as a contributor of that project, then his beliefs are none of the project's business.