I suggest "no effects at all" and "canceled for life, now dead or on welfare" is a false dichotomy. Obviously I had to rebuild a company and codebase rather than build on Firefox. Mozilla's loss, now.
I rather appreciate that you read and responded to my comment and I don’t want any thing to come across as untoward
And this is the cancel culture we're all supposed to be worried about, really?
What would have been, in your estimation, the appropriate consequence for working to deny marriage rights to gay people in California? Please don't say "nothing," i.e. no consequence.
Pretending the victim wasn't harmed and then asking him "what he learned" and "what his regrets are" is pretty malicious.
Broken down, its like this:
I'm asking what he learned: What was the take away form the situation? Is there something of value from what happened that can be shared that is worthwhile? If it comes across as implied as anything else, then I did a poor job at framing, but the question in the literal is asking nothing more than that.
My second question is simply, do you regret the experience? Do you have regrets surrounding the situation? An answer of "I don't regret anything about that situation" is another way to answer the same question.
I wasn't setting a trap, I was hoping to use the fact the person in question was actually commenting to get more information about the experience from a different source.
I don't think that's unreasonable at all.
I'm doing my absolute best to leave my own personal feelings out of it as well, which is why I used the words I did, actually, I felt they were far more along the lines of matter of fact than anything else.
Granted, I will concede we lose some of the human element in all this when talking over a text forum, so maybe this isn't obvious to others, however the questions were meant to elicit an honest response, not a defensive one.
Edit: I'll go on the record (now seeing I got an answer)
I think this narrative about "cancellation culture" is somewhat ridiculous. Its just an outgrowth of everyone being outraged in public forums now (Twitter, Facebook etc). Inevitable and very human, since any form of mass media was widely consumed (Tim Wu wrote a great book about mass media called The Master Switch which covers this very well). I don't think its a "problem" like some people make it out to be.
Secondly no, I don't think he was harmed, Brave is a successful product, and having to go outside the valley to raise money isn't "canceling" somebody. You still have a business, you still are CEO of that business, and its a successful business. In fact, I know since all this with Mozilla he's been interviewed in positive lights for Brave specifically. This isn't exactly following the guys career.
I know I'll likely take some flak for this, but I also don't disagree with what happened either. Actions have consequences, and the more publicly visible you are the more severe those consequences will be. A CEO that doesn't stand for the companies public values and missions isn't going to be kept on as CEO. In Mozilla's case, social equality is important enough that it affects the boardroom.
Now, most people will be fine with those things up to some point, but if you want to minimize risk you avoid those sorts of activities. And you may give up benefits if you don't do some of those things as well.
I don’t mean it as being malicious. Doesn’t mean I don’t have a different point of view on what happened but that is separate from my goal of becoming more informed
The way I see this:
1. He spent $1000 of his own money on something. It was a legal transaction. (Some people spend that on car stuff, others spend this on computer parts, and others spend this on their addiction to anime). Others, in other countries spend money in ways the US deems "immoral."
2. Other people tried to take what he spent it on and then apply this on his performance and tried to associate that action with "how the work place may be" (Is there evidence that he treated gay married individuals differently?)
He did have an affect from this. (All the details aren't clear.. also I don't think they're important for this arguement from this). What is your stance on punishing him for doing #1 and #2?
I ask about regrets, because people have them, another valid answer would simply be that they do not regret anything about the situation. Sometimes, when answering the first question, they never get around to talking about this part, which can be equally if not more so valuable.
I don't know how I could phrased this - and given the comment window, for visibility sake - any other way. They're two questions that I genuinely didn't intend to be "charged". I ask the same exact questions at the end of our sprints!
Of course, the human element can be missing a little in a text forum, but I didn't want to accidentally word things in a way that would make someone defensive either, as I couldn't come up with a good way of wording things without introducing my own personal biases and opinions on the matter, which wouldn't have been a way to approach this to get someone to answer objectively (where objective means non defensive and in their own words and thoughts)
First really consider the ask, on its face value, and consider you can always answer the question in the negative, if thats how you really feel.
Thats what I was going for.
The way your comment was phrased, combined with your dismissiveness of Eich's departure from Mozilla in the comment's predecessor caused myself, and seemingly the preponderance of your respondants to read it in the tone of a kintergarten teacher asking a child if he'd learned his lesson, and to respond as such.
Probably not to donate to causes you believe in six years before you receive a promotion at the organization you've founded and helped lead for a decade and a half?