I'm curious what the community thinks about the ouster (under pressure) of Brendan Eich from Mozilla.

Should someone be deprived of their livelihood for contributing to a candidate or cause with which we don't agree?  Is it OK for a company to push someone out for personal views contrary to company policy that are not expressed on company time?  Is it OK for people to try to force a company to fire someone because they don't care for the person's personal views or contributions?

In all cases?  In some cases? 

For those not familiar, here's a blog that sort of gives both sides of the argument, in that it quotes heavily from one while presenting another.  

http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/07/brendan_eich_homophob...

Eich, for those who are not aware, was the co-founder of Mozilla, its chief technical officer, and the developer of Javascript which is used across the web.

Tags: 8, Eich, Proposition, discrimination, homosexual

Views: 364

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

True: facts are not subjective, but attitudes are.

And with that, you concede the point.

A claim like Icelanders should have the right to marry Americans is a matter of opinion, not a fact. It will be settled by majority vote (if it ever becomes an issue). Majority vote by proxy, though, because we live in a republic, not a democracy. Whenever you see a "should," it's an attitude/opinion, not a fact.

That's a strawman fallacy.

The claim under evaluation is not whether a right should exist, but whether some should be excluded from that right: not 'Icelanders should have the right to marry' but rather 'everyone except Icelanders should have the right to marry'.

That is discrimination: unfairly (unjustly, partially, or dishonestly) treating one group differently than another group.

If the opinion is rendered with a false claim ('Icelanders are genetically inferior'), then it is dishonest.

If the opinion is rendered with the non-explanation that Icelanders are simply disliked, then it is partial.

If the opinion is rendered without explanation, it is unjust.

BTW, I know you imagine this discussion is over, but you seem to want to leave an impression that I believe that gay rights cause child molestation, and nothing could be further from the truth. 

Not at all. The conversation is very much over. I wanted you to demonstrate that you are intellectually dishonest.

That you brought child molestation and bestiality into a conversation about LGBT rights demonstrates something else entirely.

You THINK you have demonstrated all kinds of things, but that means to your satisfaction.

I have demonstrated that your point is false. Dishonesty is not a matter of opinion. If you claim my reasoning is unsound anywhere along the way, then point it out. Explain where and how it is faulty. You haven't done that because you're wrong and you can't do it.

I know it frustrates you that...

Not at all, Unseen. It's actually rather enjoyable to see you back down. That you're withdrawing with an exaggeration, a cry of foul, and a claimed time shortage? That puts a little smile on my lips.

...I don't debate your every point.

There is only one main point under debate here and (as you've just admitted) you're refusing to engage me on it.

And that brings us to...

I typically respond to one point per post. Keep your posts shorter and on one point and you'll get the satisfaction of point by point replies. (And that doesn't mean take a long post and break it up into six shorter ones.)

...the standard protest as to format...

I have about seven or eight more posts by other members I'd like to address and eight movies I borrowed from the library I'd like to start viewing. I can't have one overeager interlocutor monopolizing my time. 

...and the tacit claim that you could put me in my place, if only you had the time (somewhere during the 12 hours you'll be sitting on your couch watching movies).

Oh, I almost forgot. Thanks for giving me the last word. ;)

You're welcome, Unseen. I wouldn't have missed that last post of yours for the world.

@Gallup's Mirror - So you couldn't resist having the last word.

You are firmly under my mind control. I take advantage of your OCD-like personality and use it against you. I write short replies, and your condition forces you to produce lengthy rebuttals. You're helpless against the possibility of not having the last word.

You are firmly under my mind control. I take advantage of your OCD-like personality and use it against you. I write short replies, and your condition forces you to produce lengthy rebuttals. You're helpless against the possibility of not having the last word.

And thus Unseen, thoroughly defeated, vents his bitter frustrations with a lowbrow ad hominem attack.

Remember folks, this valuable lesson is brought to you by Unseen, the distinguished teacher of logic: when you lose a debate on merit, say your opponent has a mentally diseased personality for rebutting your argument.

Well done, Unseen.

@Gallup's Mirror - Well done, Unseen.

(applause)

It depends on the nature of his contract and professional responsibilities. If it was simply a matter of the private views of an employee, then it really wouldn't be anyone's business as long as he conducted himself professionally. Personally, I wouldn't choose to whether or not to use Mozilla's products based on this.

That said, a CEO's image connects to how the public feels about a company. Often we only care when we hear about something that pisses us off. If it damages the company's image -- even if for arbitrary reasons --, then his resignation is going to be encouraged. the public has a right to be fickle and patronize whom they want.

Just going on the linked article, if I was Mozilla, I'd have tried making a statement that the company itself does not discriminate against LGBT people, that is supports marriage equality if that happens to be the case, and that it also supports the right of its employees to hold their own independent views. If that didn't work... business in America is harsh, I guess.

This hinges a bit on technicalities. If we're talking Prop. 8, that California ballot measure system seems mighty fucked up. Thing is, that's a problem with California policy, and not Eich and Mozilla specifically. 

I'm glad I live in Belgium where gay people are protected just as much as any other persecuted group.

I'm glad you live in Belgium, too. 

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I am also not in America. While we have both federal and provincial protections in place in Canada, the case in question comes down more to a private matter. While a Proposition 8 scenario cannot really happen here, the law doesn't govern the personal views of CEOs or which organizations they support. A similar scenario could arise within our borders. We also have American companies operating here in various ways -- Mozilla products specifically are internationally used -- so this specific issue could still cross borders.

I'm not saying he should have been fired. I really don't care that much. I simply horrified that people in the US take the rights of one protected minority far more seriously than the rights of another protected minority.

You opened by inviting comments on a specific event-- Brendan Eich's ouster at Mozilla-- and shifted to generalizations. I'm going to address my comments to the specific case of Brendan Eich and Mozilla.

Should someone be deprived of their livelihood...

Let's not overstate this, Bob. Brendan Eich is a wealthy man. He's not on the street begging for nickels.

for contributing to a candidate or cause with which we don't agree?

Donate $1000 to a Republican candidate? Sure. Give $1000 to support the Keystone Pipeline? You're in the clear. But lay your money on a spoilsport law against Those People? There's a turd in the pool. Get the strainer.
It wouldn't matter if Eich had contributed $1000 to 'Citizens Against Republican Marriage' or to 'The National Committee Against Jews" or to the "White People Are Stupid Caucus." He's toast.

Is it OK for a company to push someone out for personal views contrary to company policy that are not expressed on company time? 

Yes, if your company hired a bigot-- against blacks, Jews, gays or whomever-- and board members resigned, employees were quitting, and users were abandoning your products. That's all very much happening on company time.

Is it OK for people to try to force a company to fire someone because they don't care for the person's personal views or contributions?

I don't think it's okay to use force. But I think it's okay to apply pressure-- in the form of boycotts, petitions, letter writing campaigns and so on-- until a company fires an anti-gay bigot CEO.

For those not familiar, here's a blog that sort of gives both sides of the argument, in that it quotes heavily from one while presenting another:

"That’s the argument: Each company has a right—indeed, it has a market-driven obligation—to make hiring and firing decisions based on “values” and “community standards.” It’s entitled to oust anyone whose conduct, with regard to sexual orientation, is “bad for business” or for employee morale. The argument should sound familiar. It has been used for decades to justify anti-gay workplace discrimination.

Twelve years ago, Larry Lane, a former manager at a carpet company, testified before Congress about how he lost his job: "[A gay man testifies that he was fired after being outed and workers came forward to say they felt uncomfortable working with him.]" Dissension. Building the team. Don’t fit. Sounds a lot like the case for removing Eich."

The blogger is reciting the classic 'false equivalence' canard that opposition to those who discriminate against a minority group is discrimination against the oppressor.

Crackpot: Sign my petition to ban Blacks, Jews and gays from my restaurant?
Me: You're a racist, antisemitic, homophobic pig. I'll never eat there again.
Crackpot: Ha! You are SO discriminating against me for my views! Hypocrite!
This kind of thing is pretty standard. For instance, anti-LGBT hate monger Orson Scott Card released a similar statement on the pending (and subsequently successful) boycott of his movie Ender's Game last year:

"Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984. With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state. Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute." Orson Scott Card

In other words, you are a bigot unless you tolerate bigotry; you are intolerant unless you tolerate intolerance. The fallacy is obvious but it never stops the bigots from trotting this one out. This time, the (dis)honor goes to some of the Brendan Eich apologists.
I'm delighted with the outcome. Now I can keep using Firefox.
A hundred years ago it would have been acceptable for Eich to donate to a White Supremacy organization. Today, it's vulgar. The same thing is happening for LGBT today that happened for race in the 1960s. Another form of bigotry is landing in the dustbin of history.

+1 an excellent reply.

Gallup-slap,

RSS

Blog Posts

coexist

Posted by aubrey knows nothing * on October 23, 2014 at 9:25pm 1 Comment

A Life-Changing Confrontation

Posted by Belle Rose on October 23, 2014 at 2:55am 7 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service