421–430 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that the people who stuck their neck out for racial equality, gay rights and women's rights were objectively right, but Brendan Eich is objectively wrong. And that matters.
Well, that's a matter of opinion (which I completely agree with!) but we can't say it's objective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>even if they had absolutely no effect on his qualification or his actions on the job. There's no evidence of this either way, and the qualifications for being a CEO are nearly orthogonal to the qualifications for being a developer. He's clearly an outstanding developer; though javascript seems the product of a damaged mind, it's the water we all swim in. As a CEO, he chooses the direction of the company and manages…
What evidence is there that he's a "homophobe"? 7 million other Californians also voted for Prop 8. Does that make them all homophobes?
People were voting against the rights of gays even though the right for same-sex couples to marry had no effect on them personally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think 'integrity' in the face of an opinion that is becoming more and more unacceptable to hold in our culture is a good thing. Changing your views, and admitting you were wrong is the best thing you can do.
This line of reasoning is very troubling to me, because 20 years ago it was pretty much unacceptable in the U.S. to hold the opinion that gays were entitled to full legal rights, let alone the ability to marry. That changed only because some very courageous people stuck their neck out, weathered all the flack and negative personal repercussions towards themselves, and gradually made the point of "Why not?" I fully su…
We cannot compare Eich's position of denying a freedom to some people to those of the people who stood for racial equality and feminism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it means freedom from state censorship and state punishment (imprisonment for instance). The public can punish you all they want.
Well, that's a bug in freedom of speech then. Other freedoms don't work like that. They protect you from all actors, not just the state. For example, your employer can't fire you for being gay. They shouldn't be able to fire you for your political views either.
The freedom to assemble doesn't mean that private owners can't keep you from assembling on their property. The freedom of press doesn't mean that the editors can't censor your work. The freedom to bear arms doesn't mean that private businesses can't bar you from the premises.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He held personal opinions which were incompatible with those of the organisation he was leading, and were actively opposed to the interests of many in the wider community he was a visible and important leader of. That's why there was so much backlash against the appointment, and in itself stands as evidence that he was not a suitable choice for the position.
First: thank you for responding, regardless of your up/down/no vote. But I disagree that his personal opinions were incompatible with Mozilla. They make software, Eich makes software. Mozilla has nothing to do with social activism. Well, at least, they didn't until now .
From the recode recap - http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich... >“It’s clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting,” said Baker, who added that she would not and could not speak for Eich. “The ability to lead — particularly for the CEO — is fundamental to the role and that is not possible here.” The most damning aspect of this was their a) inability to predict this would be an issue…
"All he had to do was lie" This speaks volumes.
Reply below with your suggestions on what political views will be litmus tests for CEO positions in the future. We can compile a list, and then dig into the next candidate's background to make sure that all of her or his views are within the realm of acceptability.
A lot of people just want to apply this to the CEO position, but frankly a hostile work environment can be created by coworkers, too. So, I propose that we dig into the backgrounds of all the people that work at Mozilla and make sure that the organization is thoroughly purged of people who could possibly offend someone with her or his views.
I am a strong supporter of gay marriage, but I have to say that I find this very unfortunate and worrying. Apparently many Mozilla supporters seem to think it is okay to bully a qualified person out of his job only for his political views, even if they had absolutely no effect on his qualification or his actions on the job. I can't help but feel like this campaign has done a lot more harm to him than his $1000 donati…
It did affect his ability to fill his role as CEO of Mozilla. A CEO is not just another employee. A CEO is the face of the organization.