191–200 of 258 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, if you need to picky, something more comparable. Imagine he said: "black people are inferior to white people and don't deserve to be happy".
It's certainly illegal to fire someone over that opinion, yes.
In my experience, anyone expressing any viewpoints other than a pro-LGBT one are vociferously attacked, which again would be fine if the tone was more reasonable. People who fight for LGBT rights were once treated with extreme disrespect and abuse. It sadly still occurs. But now the shoe is on the other foot: I think it's odd that those who were previously mistreated start mistreating others when they gain acceptance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Discrimination on the basis of political stance is bigotry. There is no two ways about this.
Uh, no. Political views are - presumably - matters of choice. Also, they're prone to regular change. In both regards, they are categorically different from distinctions of gender, race, orientation, etc.
This is definitely one of those moral fashions [1] that Paul Graham wrote about: "What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even ki…
Wow, understatement of the decade. Is that also true of the folks who wouldn't leave Woolworth's lunch counters a few decades back? I don't know how you, personally, feel on this issue, but designating people who love each other as second-class citizens isn't a mere fassion. It's a fucking atrocity, no less.
Rather, to call this issue a moral fashion rightly describes its fluctuation over the course of human history. If we are honest, tolerance of homosexuality to varying degrees has fluctuated as much as the age of consent. Greece once tolerated homosexuality, especially when practiced through pederasty, for instance. And that culture likewise thought it was the most advanced society ever to have existed, and, like many in this thread, could never imagine society moving in the opposite direction.
Eich has the misfortune of taking the side that has grown to be labeled heresy, and he is being ostracized for it. This is exactly the sort of idea Paul Graham spoke about in his modern heresies essay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And one that steers the direction of the company every single day. Mere employees don't.
Every employee affects the direction of the company in some amount, commensurate with their hierarchical level, security clearance, expertise, etc. In normal, day to day operations, the CEO tends to have a bigger share of influence than other employees, but he neither has sole influence, nor always the biggest influence. One could very well argue that Jonathan Ives had a bigger influence than Steve Jobs on Apple's di…
(If the majority of employees pull in that direction, then the CEO needs to rethink. But we're talking about individuals).
"In short, a CEO is just an employee, often getting paid more than the average employee, and often having more influence than the average employee, but not always."
Yes always. Your supposed company where the average employee out-influences the CEO simply does not exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not much of a counterargument there.
Nothing to counter. Putting words into a comment does not make it valid. Review your history. p.s. Feel free suggest the same thing about my comment. I know you want to.
Unless you have a supporting argument or counterargument, you have no valid contribution.
As Uncel Dolan once said: Okei, bai
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every employee affects the direction of the company in some amount, commensurate with their hierarchical level, security clearance, expertise, etc. In normal, day to day operations, the CEO tends to have a bigger share of influence than other employees, but he neither has sole influence, nor always the biggest influence. One could very well argue that Jonathan Ives had a bigger influence than Steve Jobs on Apple's di…
If an employee pulls in one direction, and the CEO pulls in the other, the employee loses. Period. (If the majority of employees pull in that direction, then the CEO needs to rethink. But we're talking about individuals). "In short, a CEO is just an employee, often getting paid more than the average employee, and often having more influence than the average employee, but not always." Yes always. Your supposed company…
I already gave the Ives counterexample re: the influence criterion.
As for the pay criterion, see:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, let me help you out. Brendan Eich choosing to pay actual money (taking a direct action) to oppose the existence of gay marriage (alienating a large community) is what I'm referring to.
You said it: Brendan Eich. In his free time. As an individual person. Mozilla has nothing to do with what this guy does in his free time (and I hope it doesn't).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will eat my proverbial hat if you can find one executive from a top company that never promoted taxes for the income range my family is into.
I assure you that marriage is an entirely different ballgame than raising some taxes. Did you read the entire post?
Boycotts are effective: I have participated in one against Australia's Kyle Sandilands. You won't always be able to do this, however.