I disagree about the Mozilla CEO comment specifically. If something is antithetical to you and other community members, regardless of the original "purpose" of a community, so be it.
I just wish you could hear yourself. Were you writing in a different context, I'd think you were writing satire. It's the same reasoning that actual bigots used against people of different races: they had no rational reason to discriminate against them, but they had learned a massive, visceral backlash reaction, and rather than challenge themselves to overcome it, they just went with it and acted on it. Rationalizing away the cognitive dissonance, racism lived on. So, we got Jim Crow, etc.
Can people here just not imagine what it would be like to be gay and also be working for someone making political donations to anti-gay groups? Would you not think that would feel fucking awful???
And he didn't get lynched; he just lost a job. Like so many gay people when they are outed. My sympathy for the guy is nearly zero.
This is in no way similar to a lynching, and one must be extraordinarily sheltered to find them similar.
He certainly was. I was there and I remember it very well. Twitter and the media went nuts, demanding he be fired.
> Serious questions about his credibility in adhering to values some people expected of Mozilla were raised
And Mozilla employees stood up for him, saying that he always treated all employees equally with respect and fairness.
> creating a PR issue for Mozilla which he was evidently incapable of managing. Mm
How would you suggest he should have "managed" it? Mm.
> This is in no way similar to a lynching, and one must be extraordinarily sheltered to find them similar.
It exactly is, and there's no need for you to turn to personal attacks against me.
Demanding someone be fired by the people with the authority to do so because you perceive that they are unsuitable for a particular role isn't lynching. It may be, in some cases, unjustified by he facts, but what makes a lynching a lynching has nothing to do with whether the accusations made are unjustified.
> It exactly is
I don't think you understand what a lynching is, because none of what you have described resembles one in any meaningful way.
I agree with this statement. A lynching is a lynching regardless of why it is done.
> I don't think you understand what a lynching is, because none of what you have described resembles one in any meaningful way.
I don't think you understand what a lynching is, otherwise you would recognize that a mob of people reacting emotionally to harm another person is exactly that. e.g. Webster, 1913: "To inflict punishment upon without the forms of law." That is literally what happened.