Why I'm Boycotting Mozilla Products
jeffknupp.com
jeffknupp.com
The fact that Eich donated in support of prop 8 does not necessarily make him a homophobe. The only thing we see is the donation and none of the context around what made him decide to do it. He has denied being a homophobe and there have been no reports of any homophobic behaviour. The only thing we actually know is that he made a donation to a political cause that the majority of the voting public also agreed with. Is it fair to say that every single one of the 52%[1] of voters in support of prop 8 are homophobes? Plainly the answer is no.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)...
In general, taking a single issue and making it something people can lose their job over it, just because you have the power to push for it in the media, is very wrong.
At worse, what Brendan voted for would merely not let some gay people perform the same BS marital custom that straight people do. Doesn't compare at all to death penalty in my book --which costs hundrends of lives -- including of kids in places like Texas.
So, Should people who are in favor of the death penatly lose their job and have their CEO positions boycotted? Take you for example. What do you think about animal rights? Or the death penatly? Or gun control? Or drugs?
No, we cannot even infer this much, all we know is that he donated to a political cause. We know nothing else, can we stop the bullying now please?
Except Eich, who is some kind of one-dimensional figure, and should lose his CEO position because people don't agree with his personal opinions.
Because you need to invent BS crusades and then inform anyone about them in order to get attention?
Just a guess, it could just be because you cannot toleate someone holding an opinion counter to yours in an issue, and have to retaliate on him not by democratic procedures or exchange of ideas, but by causing him to lose his job.
It's getting a bit ridiculous how some people are getting publicly bashed, because of their views. There is clear separation between the person with his views and the company with its vision.
But then, I'm not a CEO.
CEOs have to be leaders, and their personal views, separate or not, are very relevant to their ability to lead.
Utter nonsense. CEOs can have personal and professional lives, just like anyone else. Eich may have opposed gay marriage but this doesn't seem to have affected any policy at Mozilla. Those going crazy over this are only insecure.
When is it okay to publicly bash people because of their public actions? (Note that I changed "views" to "public actions", since as I understand it the main objection is to a specific public action; donating money to a political cause.)
The answer certainly isn't "never". I can think of no clear boundary for when it is/isn't fair or okay. At the very least, I don't think there's always a clear separation between a person and a company's vision. One need only consider the professed vision of "Susan G. Komen for the Cure" vs. the public reactions to the specific views and actions of some of its board. Or going back a few years, consider the 2004 attempted "takeover" of the Sierra Club board by those with a stronger immigration-reduction viewpoint.
Personally, I think it's completely fair to demand that others conform with your political/societal ideas. Do you think Stallman would have gotten anywhere with free software if he followed your recommendation?
OTOH, I think that it's completely unrealistic to believe that others will always conform with your ideas.
Trying to get someone fired from his job is not "publicly bash".
The author could have written an essay like "Brandan Eich's views on matter X are bad". He could also have tried to outvote people with Brendan's ideas in actual voting.
Asking for a boycott in a company that chose to elect him as a CEO not because of some professional action of Brendan or his company, but because of his private action, is crossing the line.
It is bullying. "You have to not be against X or else...". Now it's gay marriage, it could just as well be the 99% or OWS, or gun laws or whatever..
Many other disagree with your opinions, and instead put the line elsewhere.
Here's a first-grade teacher who was fired for posting her private views on Facebook. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/teacher-should-be-fired-f...
> "The reason why she was suspended was because the incident created serious problems at the school that impeded the functioning of the building," board president Theodore Best said in a statement at the time. "You can't simply fire someone for what they have on a Facebook page; but if that spills over and affects the classroom then you can take action."
A judge agreed with the decision. The final decision is described in http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-jersey-district-dismiss... .
> The ALJ noted that generally public reactions to an individual’s statement cannot limit their rights to free speech, but that “in a public school setting thoughtless words can destroy the partnership between home and school that is essential to the mission of the schools.” The appellate court agreed with the ALJ’s findings.
So even in a place with 1st amendment protections, it's still possible for people to call for someone to be fired, and have it happen. Completely legal, even. A bunch of people complained:
> Two angry parents went to her principal’s office to express their outrage, and one parent threatened to remove her child from school. The school also received at least a dozen irate phone calls. Twenty to 25 people gathered outside the school to protest because of the statements, and news reporters and camera crews from major news organizations descended upon the school. At the next Home-School Council meeting, the majority of the meeting was devoted to O’Brien’s posts and parents expressed their outrage over the posts. When O’Brien was made aware of the outrage against her posts, she was surprised that her posts had led to such a reaction.
Certainly those people disagree that your line exists where you think it does, because they do believe that the teacher's private actions certainly are relevant.
BTW, this is not bullying. You are misusing the term. There is no sense of physical or social imbalance of power used to intimidate.
People call of the resignation of other people all the time, even for events from private lifes with no direct, significant effect on their professional life.
Here's one example: http://voices.yahoo.com/san-francisco-mayor-newsom-admits-ad... . Supervisor McGoldrick (of San Francisco) called for Mayor Gavin Newsom's resignation after Newson's affair with Rippey-Tourk become public. I think that who one has sex with is a private matter, so long as both can give legal consent. But it was enough for McGoldrick to say "the mayor failed as a leader and a role model."
Your view, if I understand you correctly, is that McGoldrick was bullying, and crossed the line? April Davila, author of that yahoo.com link, disagrees: "McGoldrick can say what he likes, it is (at least for the time being) still a free country, but I for one hope Newsom stays."
So you see that many people clearly disagree with your opinion and also with your framing.
Yes. But that's not an argument.
Are you content with "other people disagee with my opinion" as a measure of its worth? It doesn't even matter that some judges have disagreed with my opinion.
Some people disagree with things like "not being racist". And judges have also made bad decisions, that now everybody derides, for ages.
If we are to have a valid conversation, it would have be with arguments about the intristic value of what we are discussing. What's good and what should people be doing is not merely a matter of "some people are OK with it".
Even democracy doens't justify things merely by "some people wanting X". It raises this bar, asking for the majority (or the plurality) or people wanting it -- and it even adds other procedures and safeguards in too.
You disagree, and say that certain things are unfair.
You mentioned that it's unfair to bring private views/actions into professional life. I pointed out a couple of examples where people do exactly that. Which is fine - you're free to say that Supervisor McGoldrick is unfair. Just realize that you're calling a lot of people unfair by your definition.
My point of bringing up those other arguments is to show that many people disagree with you. This means that you need to have a stronger basis for your argument, otherwise I'm free to treat it as an opinion that I can easily ignore.
You mention "not being racist" as a similar argument. But in the US it's completely fair to demand that others conform with one's racist ideas. I can hold a protest on the sidewalk in front of a store and demand that they only hire Trafalmadorians. People won't respect me, and it would be illegal for the store to do so, but it's completely fair that I make that demand and be able to protest peacefully. There is no law which prevents me from being racist and ignoring Trafalmadorians that I meet on the street. Those laws you talk about deal with government, businesses, education, public accommodation, etc. but not individual people. (Otherwise it would be a free speech and right to assemble violation. Hence why there are still racist private clubs.)
If I were were a Jain, who believes that not even insects should be killed, I might demand that the president step down because he killed a fly once on TV.
If I were strongly anti-fur, it's fair for me to demand that someone step down at CEO for wearing a coon-skin cap at a private Halloween party.
If I were an absolute teetotaler, I might demand that a CEO resign because he enjoys a beer every once in a while in his spare time, while I believe that no one in a position of responsibility should ever drink alcohol.
I am completely of the opinion that anyone can call for the resignation of someone else based on "99% or OWS, or gun laws or whatever".
What's "unfair" about those? Nothing. I say that none of these demands, including a demand based on one's political contributions to a state constitutional amendment, are not at all "unfair". "Unrealistic", certainly, but there's nothing intrinsically unfair about these demands.
So my opinion is that all of these are "fair". Your opinion is that some are "unfair". It's easy to find people who disagree with you. So now we've got dozens of opinions.
You also mention that people who make these unfair arguments are bullying. Would you explain that logic? I don't see how these are connected at all.
What I meant by fair is that according to me it's not OK to punish someone because of his/her views, when the person manages to separate personal and professional life. But if that's your thing, by all means, do it. I hope you won't complain if you are ever on the receiving end though.
Like I said to coldtea, "I'm glad you have your opinions." I have different ones.
Someone who's been on the board and CTO of an organization bringing in $100+ million per year, and whose income in 2012 was over $650,000 is in a position of power. May I dream of ever being on the receiving end of the same sort of situation.
In the realm of "scandals", this is very low down the list. The obvious defense strategy is the one Mozilla is taking: https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ . It does not end up calling the opposition's views "unfair."
So far it has been not proven that Brendan Eich is homophobic, the only thing we know is that he wouldn't prefer to call same sex unions marriages.
Boycotting isn't fighting intolerance with intolerance, it's just an instance of someone abstaining from something.
This article, for instance, states the following: "Indeed, any right withheld from any group of people must be rallied against."
Yet the author makes that very claim in an article that basically suggests that people should not have the right to oppose homosexuality or gay marriage, and should not have the right merely to express such beliefs. He should be rallying against his own article and his own stance, in fact.
I'm not suggesting that he or anyone else should be denied the right to hold or to express contradictory or hypocritical viewpoints, of course. But the use of such arguments does make it hard to take one seriously, regardless of what the issue at hand is, and regardless of the position being expressed.
(There are limited rights, like workplace laws protecting people who express views about unsafe working conditions or racial discrimination in the workplace from retaliatory action by their employers. This should not be confused with a general right that applies to everyone and all speech.)