21–28 of 28 posts
The whole statement suggests that Mozilla believe treating employees fairly and equally (at least on the specific point of insurance) is somehow remarkably good of them.
I found this a very negative statement which makes me think less of Mozilla.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"What's wrong with it being a deeply-held belief?" Wait, what? Alright, let's start from the beginning. "Hell, for that matter, what exactly is this position everyone keeps ascribing to him?" It may seem like we can't really tell, because he never really openly commented on this, but what we do know is this: * he donated $1,000 of his own money to support Proposition 8 * the full text of Proposition 8 (according to W…
>It's a whole another issue whether he should resign as a CEO of an organization that prides itself for being open and inclusive (or at least issue an apology and/or a statement of his changed mind on this issue). Why would either of those options happen? Since when is a person not entitled to his own opinions and beliefs? Him being the CEO has nothing to do with the stand on diversity of the organization itself, tha…
We don't really know yet how his personal beliefs will affect the company. Read through some of the other comments here, I agree it could just be in very subtle -- yet still negative -- ways.
What I think is more interesting is how this reveals how deeply rooted sexism and homophobia are in our society. Yes, racism is still obviously a problem, but think for a moment what the reactions would be if the new CEO was known to have donated to KKK.
Here are some more fun exercises:
* what if the new CEO was a scientologist?
* what if the new CEO was an African American and it was revealed he donated to a group that attempts to make interracial marriage illegal again because he believes white people are sub-human creatures (the way the actual new CEO probably sees gay people, since he doesn't believe they deserve human and civil rights)?
* what if the new CEO was a neo-nazi sympathizer?
* what if the new CEO was a woman who really, really doesn't like men (and maybe even donated to some cause that attacks men or men's rights in some way)?
You can argue that all of these are just opinions. But where do we draw the line? People are usually very inconsistent with that. Homophobia is tolerated while putting a woman in a leading position makes people question this decision. Heck, people get all riled up over Ben Affleck being the next Batman, but the fact Bill Murray abused his wife doesn't stop him from being a geek idol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's a whole another issue whether he should resign as a CEO of an organization that prides itself for being open and inclusive (or at least issue an apology and/or a statement of his changed mind on this issue). Why would either of those options happen? Since when is a person not entitled to his own opinions and beliefs? Him being the CEO has nothing to do with the stand on diversity of the organization itself, tha…
The real problem here is that he actually acted on his opinions. If someone is a homophobe, racist or even a pedophile -- while they are not acting on their opinions or whatever drives them, I agree, they are free to think whatever they want. It would be better for them to work those issues out, but hey, if they're not actually harming anyone, I don't personally care. We don't really know yet how his personal beliefs…
Yes, making his opinions and actions public were a bad and stupid idea, but he's not a criminal for having opinions that differ from yours, and his current job isn't being the Pope. His job position isn't centered around his morality, it's centered around his performance as CEO of the organization. Again, stupid move to make his unpopular opinions public, yes. But having a personal stance doesn't make him evil.
I don't particularly think the politics of an executive defines the corporate culture of a company, so I'm not boycotting Mozilla just because the CEO has made some questionable political contributions. However this post sends the wrong message for one reason - It is left unsigned by the CEO or anybody else in the organization. The omission of any sort of statement on his behalf speaks more than had Mozilla not addre…
This is an important matter to the community which created and supported Mozilla from the beginning.
To us, Mozilla represents freedoms and rights for all people. For the incoming CEO to have taken a strong (and public) position at odds with that representation suggests that Mozilla has changed, or will change, or that we were mistaken.
This compromises Eich's ability to be an effective leader of the community. He is presumed to support inequality, bigotry, and hatred.
How can we ignore this? Mozilla is bigger and broader and stronger than one person, but Eich's presumed views are toxic and antithetical to what we believe Mozilla stands for.
These views should not be elevated to a position of official and executive leadership in our community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's a whole another issue whether he should resign as a CEO of an organization that prides itself for being open and inclusive (or at least issue an apology and/or a statement of his changed mind on this issue). Why would either of those options happen? Since when is a person not entitled to his own opinions and beliefs? Him being the CEO has nothing to do with the stand on diversity of the organization itself, tha…
The real problem here is that he actually acted on his opinions. If someone is a homophobe, racist or even a pedophile -- while they are not acting on their opinions or whatever drives them, I agree, they are free to think whatever they want. It would be better for them to work those issues out, but hey, if they're not actually harming anyone, I don't personally care. We don't really know yet how his personal beliefs…
The problem here is with the line "acting on his opinions". He didn't go into a church and bust-up a marriage ceremony. He didn't go drag a guy behind his truck. He didn't go and give weapons to his local skinheads to go make trouble.
He went and gave money, as is acceptable in place of a letter of support and considered an idiomatic way of voicing an opinion, to an organization doing something that many disagree with.
You are trying to make an argument for censuring people based on their participation in local government.
Much as we all hope that in a few years everyone will look back on LGBT discrimination as silly and outmoded, I hope we too will look back at this time of civic indifference and inactivity and say "Well, we now know that we get the kind of governance we work towards".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's a whole another issue whether he should resign as a CEO of an organization that prides itself for being open and inclusive (or at least issue an apology and/or a statement of his changed mind on this issue). Why would either of those options happen? Since when is a person not entitled to his own opinions and beliefs? Him being the CEO has nothing to do with the stand on diversity of the organization itself, tha…
The real problem here is that he actually acted on his opinions. If someone is a homophobe, racist or even a pedophile -- while they are not acting on their opinions or whatever drives them, I agree, they are free to think whatever they want. It would be better for them to work those issues out, but hey, if they're not actually harming anyone, I don't personally care. We don't really know yet how his personal beliefs…
If you disagree with him, then disagree with him. And while you're at it, do it The American Way (TM) by boycotting sh*t and blogging and giving money to organizations that he finds morally reprehensible and electing (buying? :|) politicians that support your view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real problem here is that he actually acted on his opinions. If someone is a homophobe, racist or even a pedophile -- while they are not acting on their opinions or whatever drives them, I agree, they are free to think whatever they want. It would be better for them to work those issues out, but hey, if they're not actually harming anyone, I don't personally care. We don't really know yet how his personal beliefs…
I'm sorry, but you haven't really made any real argument here that wasn't a baseless non-sequitur or slippery slope, and apparently only acted on the fact that you have a strong stance against this person. None of the examples you provided really matter since it just so happens that the fact of the matter is not the opinions or actions this person has in his private life, but what he does for the organization (I'm al…
It wasn't a "stupid idea" to make his actions public. Actually he didn't, someone had to discover this. He's actually being a coward and won't even admit what his views are.
And while it's not criminal to stomp on other people's human and civil rights -- that is if those people are gay, one day it will be. Taking away (or at least trying to) someone's rights does make you evil.