"the damage and trauma he caused"?
Really? That's a celebration?
Really? That's a celebration?
I think the article author managed to balance the feeling of gratefulness towards the person for their contributions, while obviously perceiving that person's worldview as unfathomable in comparison to their own.
In that situation, what other choice did the author have? Lie (by omission)? I respect the fact that the author chose to be honest instead.
And I think people should appreciate that choice or at least understand it without dismissing it as some kind of character assassination or rudeness.
An ever increasing number of people nowadays seem to be very much guilty of the same things the author mentioned in their post (the black and white worldview), it's not exclusive to deeply religious or conservative people. It very much exists on the "other side" as well. They will usually cite their own favorite pieces of dogmatic gospel (e.g. the "paradox of tolerance") to justify dismissing a person outright, based on some "incompatible" worldview or statement.
The author, however, didn't resort to this. As someone who obviously has no insight into what the article describes, to me it still absolutely comes across as balanced.
"$NAME was $COMPANY's first intern, and went on to stay with $COMPANY for eighteen years. We thank $NAME for $GENDEREDPOSSESSIVE years of service." would feel soulless, as if she didn't know the person at all. It's the sort of obituary a VP at Apple might get; named, but essentially anonymous. A form letter, without any actual sense of appreciation or understanding.
I don't particularly like Mitchell's handling of Mozilla, but this obituary is one I'd like to have for myself. It's written in a manner that politely disagrees with the subject while acknowledging perceived harms, in a way that's not dissimilar to his own views on how ideas should be addressed while not falling into the trap of modern pluralism (the acceptance of all beliefs as equally valid) which he personally thought to be harmful.[1]
It's a remarkable obituary for what seems like an intensely bright human who was openly disagreeable.
On the other side where I am, it is a bitch slap and a half.
It is very clear to me that Baker actively detests Markham even past his death. That's fine. I also detest people that are long dead. But this blog post is not really something that I would call "good", it truly reads to me as a very bitter person goading about, not a final ribbing between friends.
Don't treat something like this as 'remarkable', that's dulling the word.
I don't see the post as a "bitch slap" to him, despite more or less disagreeing with Mitchell's views, but it's probably a "bitch slap" to you.
I make no judgement on Markham's thoughts on the matter. If I am or not is probably the position you should take, but its not one I'm pushing here.
Words presented by Baker are not words I would like from someone I respect, 8 days after my death, just enough tact to know not do it within the first week before the man is decaying in the ground, not enough to think about what people will think of the person that's still alive afterwards.
> but it's probably a "bitch slap" to you.
Yes, I state it as much, there is no statistical uncertainty here on my end. There is no allegations or false journalistic integrity to take credence to.
The man is dead, there is no rebuttal. Baker took her final words and danced on his grave with it, figuratively, I can't be certain if she was in attendance or will be sometime in the future.
> You are, ironically, the one completely disagreeing with him, pushing ideological diversity.
If I am, then I suppose it. I'll leave this here as an address to your view here:
> It's not wrong to draw a line and say, "This person is wrong about this," and it's not a sign of detesting someone
Would you honestly say that someone being described in the following way is not a clear line:
"Eventually Gerv felt called to live his faith by publicly judging others in politely stated but damning terms. His contributions to expanding the Mozilla community would eventually become shadowed by behaviors that made it more difficult for people to participate. But in 2001 all of this was far in the future."
All he's done, shadowed?
> "paradox of tolerance"
Is better understood as the "peace treaty of tolerance". There's no obligation or expectation to be tolerant of someone who is intolerant to your existence. You can choose to remain tolerant of those who break the treaty, but I personally don't extend that courtesy to those whom I perceive to be consistent belligerents.
In case it's not clear, the vitriol was solely based on his being an unapologetic Christian. Not at any overt acts as an employee.
> was solely based on his being an unapologetic Christian
I have my suspicions what's implied by this... and how that may be perceived as indeed very hurtful and destructive to some.
Does a better job than I ever could to explain what's wrong with that piece.