this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
1200 points (96.5% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
10 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He was ousted because he donated 1000$ to a political project that he personally supported, which yes, was banning of homosexual marriage.
I specify that, even if I shouldn't, the project in question is not something I agree with. Yet firing him and continuing to attack him years after (like you're doing here) over opinions he kept personal (he didn't bring it to Mozilla nor did he comment openly about this opinion) is a little shocking to me.
Let's say you personally supported a wildly unpopular, some might call bigoted, societal change, say drug criminalization in states that legalized it. As long as you just not exposed this in your professional life, how would you feel if your work fired you over it and if people kept bashing you (without knowing anything about you) and your future professional endeavors for the rest of your life?
We should probably just chill out on that part.
Let me translate your comment with equivalent wording that reveals it's true nature.
also your drug criminalization is an entire load of false equivalence bollocks, drug criminalization is a far more complex issue than Gay Marriage, or rather whether we should treat people equally. There are very valid arguments for certain drugs to be criminalized that are way too easy to abuse and kill people with, like fentanyl and I say that as someone that's a supporter of full drug decriminalization.
Not to mention there are levels to drug criminalization, there is a difference if you have a gram of drug on you or a metric fuck ton.
There is no version of treating LGBT+ as just somewhat less equal that's morally defensible.
Sorry english is not my first language, so that wasn't clear. By drugs, I meant cannabis here, well I don't know the details in the US but "soft drugs" that's being de-criminalized there. Not other kinds of drugs. Though that was just an example to make people realize that expressing unpopular opinions, as long as they're not illegal, should not lead to firing people and insulting them for life.
Also, you're the one exposing false equivalences with your godwin point. Being against marriage of homosexual people is not at all akin to mass murder. And the action of calling for the eradication of any people is (rightly to me) illegal in any case.
Never defended the guy's opinions, I just find comments here a little bit (euphemism) extreme.
how are you not defending him? you are literally making arguments in his defense or in the defense of someone like him, trying to get people to empathize with him for having an "unpopular opinion"
so if you think mass murders are a bit of a stretch (it really isn't if you know anything about fascism) let's say he donated to a political group whose goal is to make interracial marriage illegal, do you still think you need to make comments about how that's "just an unpopular opinion"?
Continuing to marginalize a vulnerable segment of society sends a message that it's ok to harass and kill members of that segment. It's not mass murder, but it certainly encourages violence.
How do you think genocides start?
Nah it's fair to keep hassling people who have done bad things to society like that. I hope that all the Jan. 6th traitors have a similar permanent status of being hassled about it too.
I get it, but not giving them any kind of an out means they will be permanent enemies even if they do change their mind about wanting a Trump coup. But on the other hand, it's hard to tell if someone really changes or just realizes they should pretend they've changed to make their life easier and bide their time for the right time to come back out.
I just know that I have some views now that are polar opposites of what I believed when I was younger.
There are unpopular personal views, and then there is advocating to politically oppress human beings. That's a hard bright line that disqualifies someone from all civil affairs among decent people.
From his lack of response on the topic it’s clear he still supports that position (being anti-gay marriage). He was ousted in part because Mozilla is supposed to be and open and inclusive place to work, hard to do that when your boss doesn’t believe you should be allowed to marry.
Furthermore he proved his lack of morals and character by starting a crypto browser. This guy isn’t worth defending.
Jobs fire people ALL THE TIME over personally held beliefs or things they say/do outside of work. We can argue that’s not right but as long as it happens to the rank and file I think it appropriate to at least try to hold C-level to the same standards. If it helps you sleep at night I’m almost sure he would have survived the backlash at any company that wasn’t like Mozilla, lord knows C-level came get away with murder most places.
So by "open and inclusive" that means "everyone has to have the personal opinions, even when they don't bring any of those opinions to the company?"
To clarify, I think gay people should be allowed to marry. I don't agree with the supposed position Brendan Eich has. I say "supposed" because you haven't provided any proof that this is his position.
Here's 2 great questions you should answer:
Islam is very anti-gay, and if you've met any Muslim immigrants, I have, they don't think the gays should marry either. Among, uh, other things. Depending on age and where they're from.
Let's say this: you work for a Pakistani Muslim and in a workplace that's predominantly Middle Eastern and North African. He doesn't believe in gay marriage, you do. You donate like $50 to some LGBTQIA+ organization. Should your boss fire you?
Or let's be less controversial: you want to legalize all drugs and donate to a candidate who thinks the same. Your employer had a family member who died of a heroin overdose, and they're pretty anti-drug. Should they fire you?
Or lastly: you're a Republican. Your boss is a registered Democrat. Neither of you talk politics at work and you get along well and you do your job. Should they fire you?
Was Brendan Rich going out of his way to tell any gay people at Mozilla he thinks they shouldn't marry? Was he bullying gay subordinates? If he was, yea, he should absolutely be fired. If not, it doesn't make sense to me for an employer to fire you for personal opinions you hold that don't effect your day-to-day job.
Fire the Muslims too if they take any public actions to oppress others, I say.
Sure, I don't disagree. But you can't fire them simply because Islam isn't pro-gay.
But I need proof that Eich was going out of his way to specifically oppress the gays, not a "well obviously" or tangential claim. If he simply donated to some Republican who later turned out later to actually be anti-gay marriage, who's to say Eich didn't know they had that position?
And we don't even know if Eich is against gay marriage, no one here has shown proof of that. Should I assume you're possibly Islamaphobic because of your comment? I don't think I should.
We can't assume people's positions based on nothing tangible. It comes off as obnoxious mind reading. In fairness, the internet created these mind reading games all political sides do, because it gets attention and likes. If someone truly holds a disagreeable opinion, you should be able to sufficiently counter it. Granted, that's a whole different think when we're talking about being in the workplace.
Believing in oppressing other people's rights is not the same as actually taking an action to take those rights away.
Advocating those beliefs is! If he wasn't doing that, no one would know about it
Look, a well thought out argument that really shows the hypocrisy of people now a days. Of course no one is going to respond.
I thankfully (at least in my opinion) live in a country where this is illegal and it does seem well-enforced (I live in France). I understand this can and does happen in the US, but I still find it shocking enough for me to comment on it. The firing of Brendan Eich had a pretty big backlash so I'm not the only one.
I do not use brave either because I'm not comfortable with the philosophy and whole crypto thing, but using that as a proof to "the lack of morals and character" of Brendan Eich is a big shortcut to take IMO. Ironically that quoted parts also sounds like something I normally would more likely hear from someone at the opposite side of the political spectrum - from what I guessed is your political affiliation - but I digress and my guess may be completely wrong (in any case, I don't care much, I just thought it may help me to make you get my point).
Then to make things clear, I'm not against boycotting companies due to the personal actions of someone you vehemently disagree with, I'm against the idea of insulting publicly both him and the projects he's affiliated with every time his name comes up. This is the very annoying and toxic part.
I wish you had that level of moral integrity when it comes to working with companies that are banked by institutions that ravage and pillage the working class.