Skip to main content

View Diary: Brendan Eich and Tolerance (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sure, I get it... (0+ / 0-)

    ...but "pick your battles" and "no selective outrage" are mutually exclusive, are they not?

    You don't get to claim both.

    The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

    by wesmorgan1 on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 11:21:01 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  No. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, homogenius, vacantlook, Rebecca

      Again, big difference between low-level employees and CEOs of companies. There is no reason to be outraged that people with bigoted opinions are employed. There is a reason to be outraged that a bigot is employed as the head of a company that claims diversity as a core value. Big difference, and no, it's not "selective outrage" to be upset over Eich and not a random employee nobody has heard of or ever will hear of.

      I don't mind if you're straight. Just don't flaunt it in public.

      by Chrislove on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 12:16:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK, so... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dallasdunlap

        ...if one of these low-level people who isn't worth "picking the battle" gets promoted to a highly visible position, say, 5 years from now, we'll go through all of this selective outrage again unless the person in question denounces themselves in public?

        Seriously, what's the staute of limitations on this stuff?

        Oh, and about this:

        There is a reason to be outraged that a bigot is employed as the head of a company that claims diversity as a core value.
        Change "employed as the head of" to "the founder of"...oh, wait, no one cared about that. (Oh, and "never heard of" is completely relative; while I haven't met Eich, I've known his name and his work for years.)

        That's one of the things that bothered me most about this mess. There was not a SINGLE accusation that Eich had EVER taken a workplace action or made a workplace decision rooted in intolerance, and he was on the leadership team of a company that was explicitly welcoming (and generous) to LGBTQ employees. In other words, he never brought his personal opinions on this topic into the workplace--and isn't that what we say we WANT?--but was pilloried anyway.

        The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

        by wesmorgan1 on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 01:04:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um, it depends (7+ / 0-)
          if one of these low-level people who isn't worth "picking the battle" gets promoted to a highly visible position, say, 5 years from now, we'll go through all of this selective outrage again unless the person in question denounces themselves in public?
          If that person is promoted to CEO of Chick-fil-A, I doubt there'd be much of a reason for outrage, because it's Chick-fil-A. but Mozilla? Any other company that touts diversity, and the person's bigotry comes to light? You betcha. This is what the 21st century looks like, so you should probably get used to it. The landscape has changed, and the market will react to blatant bigotry.
          There was not a SINGLE accusation that Eich had EVER taken a workplace action or made a workplace decision rooted in intolerance
          So? He donated $1,000 to enshrine bigotry into law. That indicates that he has anti-gay animus. And beyond that, there's the symbolism of the whole thing. Sorry, but Mozilla and other diversity-embracing companies can't get away with selecting a bigot to be the CEO.

          As others have said, this comment thread wouldn't exist if this guy was an open white supremacist. Wouldn't. Exist.

          I don't mind if you're straight. Just don't flaunt it in public.

          by Chrislove on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 01:13:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Nevertheless, your position is that there is some (0+ / 0-)

        level of corporate employment at which a person can be denied employment because of speech. Or, in this case, a small campaign contribution.  (and yes, $1000 is a small contribution to someone like Eich.)
           Keep in mind, the contribution was in support of a cause that was backed by major religions and was supported by the majority of voters in California and by voters in other states that had similar measures on the ballot.
           How much easier would it be to get LGBT folks or progressives in general fired from their jobs?
           If you think the campaign against Eich was okay, you don't have a leg to stand on when you protest the firing of others for their religious, moral, or political beliefs.

        •  First of all: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rebecca, Tonedevil

          It's not any more acceptable to advocate for homophobia than it is/was to advocate for segregation, no matter how "nicely" you try to frame it. And it doesn't matter if a majority of people supported it. Creating equal opportunity for all is not a popularity contest.

          Secondly of all, most of us vote in the privacy of the voting booth, which means that you're talking about a situation that simply isn't going to happen. It's when you go public with your support of homophobia and you're in the position to hire or fire people that it becomes an issue, just like it would be for being a skinhead or posting a Nazi symbol on your Facebook profile. And even if Eich kept his politics out of the workplace, there is still the perception of conflict of interest. I know that's not fair, I know that wasn't the way it was in the past, but that's a fact of life.

          And there is no equivalence to LGBT folks getting fired from their jobs to what Eich did. Being gay is biological which what Eich did was behavioral. Big difference.

          "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

          by Eternal Hope on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 09:53:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  WOW (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil

          This certainly sounds familiar:

          Keep in mind, the contribution was in support of a cause that was backed by major religions and was supported by the majority of voters in California and by voters in other states that had similar measures on the ballot.
          Again, if this was about an open white supremacist, we would Not. Be. Having. This. Conversation. Period.

          I'll ask you again...with whom is your beef? The market itself? The customers who boycotted Mozilla? OK Cupid? Surely it's not with the LGBT movement, because No. LGBT. Organization. Backed. Eich's. Removal.

          Oh, and also:

          If you think the campaign against Eich was okay, you don't have a leg to stand on when you protest the firing of others for their religious, moral, or political beliefs.
          Just watch. Welcome to the 21st century. I doubt Eich was the last anti-gay bigot to go down in flames. Get used to it. In the meantime, enjoy your false equivalence.

          I don't mind if you're straight. Just don't flaunt it in public.

          by Chrislove on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 10:28:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  A person "can be denied employment because of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil

          speech" at any level at any time, and always could be. By using the passive voice, your description hides agency and any specific actions by anyone, and thereby allows any scenario that leads in some way or other to someone being denied employment in some way or other that is in some way related to speech. Some such scenarios are "ok" and some are not.

          And you are arguing as if anyone's talking about setting up some ruling authority to set rules for this. There aren't any such rules or authority. Each individual decides if they want to boycott a product or company, and other people choose to make a similar choice, or not. It's not determined by any kind of authority, but by many independent actors choosing to say what they wish and spend or not spend their money on what they wish. Each individual can make these choices differently. If enough people choose to stop spending their money at a particular business because of a particular employee, whether because of something that employee said or did, or because of any other reason, that person might wind up out of a job because that employee might become a liability to the business. And there is nothing necessarily wrong in that. It has always been such. People can and will disagree about different such scenarios.

          How much easier would it be to get LGBT folks or progressives in general fired from their jobs?
          Since his position is already the norm, and has been in basically every society since the dawn of time, it would be no easier, and no harder.
          If you think the campaign against Eich was okay, you don't have a leg to stand on when you protest the firing of others for their religious, moral, or political beliefs.
          Doesn't follow at all. If I was protesting someone being fired it would not be for the reasons you're using, and which I and others here are refuting.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site