Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Mozilla CEO Resigns Over Prop 8

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 1:05:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Brenden Eich is the co-founder of Mozilla, a non-profit organization that makes the web browser Firefox. He resigned after becoming CEO for 10 days amidst controversy over a $1,000 contribution he made 6 years ago for Prop 8 that advocated banning gay marriage (note, Prop 8 passed in California by majority vote but was ruled unconstitutional in the SCOTUS)

Eich has been largely silent about all of this even though it caused controversy years ago when it first surfaced, and so the media has run with its imagination over this. I caught wind of this because NPR's Forum program spent a good hour on this, and a centerpiece for debate was over a Slate article that cited hypocrisy:

Losing your job for being gay is different from losing your job for opposing gay marriage. Unlike homosexuality, opposition to same-sex marriage is a choice, and it directly limits the rights of other people. But the rationales for getting rid of Eich bear a disturbing resemblance to the rationales for getting rid of gay managers and employees. He caused dissension. He made colleagues uncomfortable. He scared off customers. He created a distraction. He didn"t fit.

It used to be social conservatives who stood for the idea that companies could and should fire employees based on the "values" and "community standards" of their "employees, business partners and customers." Now it"s liberals. Or, rather, it"s people on the left who, in their exhilaration at finally wielding corporate power, have forgotten what liberalism is.


http://www.slate.com...

Discuss.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 1:22:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
My own views:

1) The CEO of a company represents the culture of a company. Eich did not resign while he was CTO of the company.

2) I think it's important to highlight a "matrix of tolerance" on this issue:

a) Tolerant of tolerance
b) Tolerant of intolerance
c) Intolerant of tolerance
d) Intolerant of intolerance

Liberals would advocate #a and #d, while eschewing #b and #c.

Libertarians would advocate all of #a, #b, #c, and #d, even though let's face it, such an advocacy is logically impossible and paradoxical.

(non Libertarian) Conservatives are typically lambasted for advocating #b and #c out of respect for tradition or religious reasons.

Given this matrix, I'd have to side with a liberal position.

3) Force is the final arbiter. The fact that the potential hypocrisy that the Slate article cites now applies against anti-LGBT advocates instead of LGBTs is indeed a demonstration of the amount of power this lobby has in America currently.

4) I'm somewhat surprised that this is getting as much news as it is. It could very well be that Eich is just a tad bit anti-social and wasn't a good fit as the mouthpiece of the company.

5) Personally I think there are legitimate reasons to oppose LGBT marriage in regards to the purpose of marriage and managed procreation, but given the small percentage of of the population this actually affects, I would side with an approach of being "tolerant of tolerance".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 6:47:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think the best way to think about it is universalisation. If we boycotted and forced people out of a job for supporting a position we see as intolerant, then we are going down a very bad road indeed.

What did he do? He didn't promote anti-gay activity. He didn't support boycotting homosexuality, or that homosexuality is wrong. He put money towards a fund which he thought was right, and did it for reasons unknown. If we are to be charitable, perhaps he did so because he believed in traditional marriage. If we boycott everyone who believed in a different version of something than we do - traditional marriage, or the nuclear family, or the common conception of state, or the rights of the individual, then we'd go down a terrible road indeed.

What if society supported incest, or bestiality, or older-aged-pedophilia, or pederasty, etc.? Or what if I believed that sex while drunk is rape? Moreover, what if all of society believed these things, and I was alone in believing I was right and they are not understanding the value of tradition, or consent, or the most effective structuring of society? I should surely have the right to lobby without fear that my job is going to be taken away from me, or that any action I do, no matter how small, is going to come back to bite me eight years later.

Many are scared of the state, and we had right to be in the early 20th, late 19th century. However, the biggest dangers now come from corporations being so large that they are able to control people, and that the private sphere can use its influence to ruin individual's lives for their belief. Pluralism is under threat because so much power has been devolved into the fourth estate and the 'people' because we believed that by just handing it back, freedom would be best protected. Yet I think this is an example of how, when an opinion is unpopular with a niche demographic, we get an incredibly vitriolic reaction, that harms the individual.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 6:01:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 6:47:41 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I think the best way to think about it is universalisation. If we boycotted and forced people out of a job for supporting a position we see as intolerant, then we are going down a very bad road indeed.

What did he do? He didn't promote anti-gay activity. He didn't support boycotting homosexuality, or that homosexuality is wrong. He put money towards a fund which he thought was right, and did it for reasons unknown. If we are to be charitable, perhaps he did so because he believed in traditional marriage. If we boycott everyone who believed in a different version of something than we do - traditional marriage, or the nuclear family, or the common conception of state, or the rights of the individual, then we'd go down a terrible road indeed.

What if society supported incest, or bestiality, or older-aged-pedophilia, or pederasty, etc.? Or what if I believed that sex while drunk is rape? Moreover, what if all of society believed these things, and I was alone in believing I was right and they are not understanding the value of tradition, or consent, or the most effective structuring of society? I should surely have the right to lobby without fear that my job is going to be taken away from me, or that any action I do, no matter how small, is going to come back to bite me eight years later.

Many are scared of the state, and we had right to be in the early 20th, late 19th century. However, the biggest dangers now come from corporations being so large that they are able to control people, and that the private sphere can use its influence to ruin individual's lives for their belief. Pluralism is under threat because so much power has been devolved into the fourth estate and the 'people' because we believed that by just handing it back, freedom would be best protected. Yet I think this is an example of how, when an opinion is unpopular with a niche demographic, we get an incredibly vitriolic reaction, that harms the individual.

Yeah, agree the issue is quite complicated.

Your answer kind of hits upon my tolerant/tolerance matrix. Do you think it's possible for a single entity to be both "tolerant of tolerance" and "intolerant of tolerance"? Or the opposite, "tolerant of intolerance" and "intolerant of intolerance"? Or all four at the same time? Personally I see this as being contradictory and thus paradoxical.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 7:27:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd say the matrix is problematic itself. Matrices imply we can only be in one of the four corners. We can strike a balance between them. Moreover, I think that we don't have to be tolerant of tolerance nor intolerance. We can demarcate what we ought to tolerate based on different factors. I'd demarcate based on "Is it dangerous to society" instead, and allow some intolerant opinions while banning some tolerant ones (if the tolerant opinions threaten to overthrow society), for example.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 9:23:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
That's most certainly supremely practical. Now that you mention it, the matrix is indeed something more or less divorced from practicality and is much more ideologically inclined. Agree that a focus on practicality is more important.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?