Discrimination of what kind? They are not publishing an app in an app store. Are they discriminating against Mozilla? Are they blocking Mozilla browsers from their site? Are people being persecuted, imprisoned, or killed for using Firefox? Are they working to put Eich in an internment camp based on his beliefs?
The word "bigotry" is a very big stick to swing against two people who could be killed in many parts of the world based on who they are. Bigotry implies a more systemic persecution than the economic decision they've made here.
By way of comparison, I'm not "discriminating" against Sony based on my boycott of their products for pushing out rootkits to their customers.
They are actively working to disenfranchise Brendan Eich of his employment. They are doing this on the basis of his political stance. This is bigotry. They are bigots. What's worse, they're hypocritical bigots, because they're trying to pass this off as some sort of anti-bigotry stance.
All social justice is like this. It breaks down under the merest of scrutinty.
I believe Eich has and will continue to have his franchise. Voting, you see, being one of the civil rights guaranteed to us. Like marriage, it turns out.
Being a fancy CEO, though? That's not a civil right. Especially not if attempting to deprive gay people of their civil rights makes it hard to perform an important function of that fancy CEO job: the recruitment and retention of staff.
That's a very reductionist point of view that doesn't seem useful as an intellectual tool.
Bigotry is not just a description of actions people take but the context in which they take them. Eich, in the context of this specific economic transaction, doesn't belong to a marginalized group. These men who are withdrawing their app do. Eich has taken direct action against them and they are responding. In this case, I believe they could be considered to be defending themselves by trying to deprive people who want to do them harm economic opportunity. I'm pretty much okay with that.
So, yeah, I guess you could say they are bigots. But that train of thought doesn't seem to me to place this situation in any useful context other than "all social justice causes are bad". Am I missing something?
> They are doing this on the basis of his political stance.
They are doing this because he directly funded initiatives that withhold equal rights from them and treat them as less than human. You can hold views, even as CEOs, I don't agree with. Hell, you could donate to the anti-funds of almost anything I believe, as long as it is an equal battlefield. But civil rights aren't about ideology, they are literally whether or not you recognize other humans as being humans and deserving the same rights as you.
Political stance is one thing, but he then specifically took action to ruin their lives. They're not acting based on against what his stance is, but on the actions he specifically took that personally and demonstrably hurt them.
Huh. White power is a political stance. One widely reviled. So is antisemitism. So if I understand you rightly, you're basically saying that everybody is a bigot on a variety of formerly-controversial issues.
I guess if you want to define the word that way, sure. In which case, I'm proud to be bigoted against racists. But I think words are more useful when they don't include 99% of the population.
Also, I think it's awesome I get to qualify as a warrior by sitting in a cafe and pointing out basic legal facts to people. Pew pew! I'm a warrior! 'Scuse me while I go beat my chest and shop for bandoliers.
Uh, no. Political views are - presumably - matters of choice. Also, they're prone to regular change. In both regards, they are categorically different from distinctions of gender, race, orientation, etc.
Still, what has that to do with personal beliefs? If he's a professional he will know to keep his personal beliefs out of his work. And if his beliefs interfere with his Mozilla's work, then I would agree on boycotting him and Mozilla. Until then, that's a private personal opinion which I absolutely don't care about.
It's fine that he has personal beliefs against gay marriage. As an LGBT person, it bothers me, but whatever, I probably bother him as well. It's mutual.
My problem is he has expressed he's willing to act on those views, by donating to a cause against gay marriage. While of course it's reasonable for him to act on his views if he wants to, that means I personally don't want to support him because I don't want to help him act on those views. Now that he's CEO, how do we know that LGBT people at Mozilla are getting fair treatment? Would he fairly consider a LGBT person for a promotion? What if two LGBT people get married and invite a bunch of their coworkers, or have a small celebration at work during break? Would he be OK with that? We don't know, but taking away from the fact that he's already acted on his anti-gay views, then I would lean towards that he wouldn't, and that bothers me enough that I don't want to support Mozilla.
There's also the fact that he designed Javascript, which is a perfectly valid reason to hate him :p
Every employee affects the direction of the company in some amount, commensurate with their hierarchical level, security clearance, expertise, etc.
In normal, day to day operations, the CEO tends to have a bigger share of influence than other employees, but he neither has sole influence, nor always the biggest influence.
One could very well argue that Jonathan Ives had a bigger influence than Steve Jobs on Apple's direction around the time of iPod's release, for example. That product singlehandedly changed Apple's market segment and consumer perception.
In short, a CEO is just an employee, often getting paid more than the average employee, and often having more influence than the average employee, but not always.
If an employee pulls in one direction, and the CEO pulls in the other, the employee loses. Period.
(If the majority of employees pull in that direction, then the CEO needs to rethink. But we're talking about individuals).
"In short, a CEO is just an employee, often getting paid more than the average employee, and often having more influence than the average employee, but not always."
Yes always. Your supposed company where the average employee out-influences the CEO simply does not exist.
Backdooring his employer's code would be directly related to his work, and illegal actions on his own time would make him unemployable if caught and convicted, because he'd go to prison. False equivalances, all.
It depends entirely on his contract - I'd expect most CEOs to have a clause about their conduct causing harm to the organisation. Even if not, it's legal to convince someone to leave, which is what usually happens in public embarrassment cases.
I don't know where you're getting this idea from, but you really should check your sources.
There is a limited prohibition against screening for political affiliations enforced by the Federal government when filling certain civil service positions, but that's about it.
For a good summary of what types of discrimination can and cannot trigger legal liability, see here:
No it's not. Indeed, you run a legal risk in NOT firing such a person given that keeping them around (especially in a senior position) creates a demonstrably hostile work environment.
That's a terrible semantic argument. Of course it's not the actual Nazi Party, but if the Mozilla CEO donated $1000 to the ANP people would be pretty angry.
It's not just them or their puzzle game. It's not just gay people either. It's everybody who wants everyone to be treated equally and not be denied their humanity. The CEO's values fly in the face of Mozilla's values. That's why he should be shown the exit door.
stop marginalizing this issue by calling it a "political stance." Hitler's "political stance" was to get rid of jews. Political stances affect real lives. Get your head out of your ass.
I think this is because stubbornness is built into the Turkish national identity. Especially when it comes to politics, if people start to feel that they are being wronged, they will be very, very stubborn about finding a way to express it.
How do you promote the domain? That's the real question. Twitter makes it quick, effortless and free to disseminate really interesting information. It's slower, more cumbersome, possibly more expensive with other methods, even with something like email.
