6 ms·

From the article: "We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs a

From the article: "We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public." Clearly people with socially conservative views are not welcome at Mozilla.

_t5yy 12y ago
"any opinion is ok, as long as you're not conservative" I used to get this constantly in HS and now in college. This type of thinking is extremely toxic and I think can be very damaging for an institutions reputation. Mozilla is no longer about "openness" it's now about a much more generic liberal world view.
- kylemaxwell 12y ago
  Bullshit. Any opinion is okay but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people, you can expect opprobrium. This applies especially when leading an organization with values like Mozilla's.
  - _t5yy 12y ago
    "Removing existing rights"? two years before that, this "right" never existed. For a right to be enshrined it has to survive, a majority of californians voted to approve prop 8...
  - hackinthebochs 12y ago
    >but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people How is opposing redefining marriage (in the context of law) working to remove existing rights of people? Its framed in terms of removing rights/civil rights because it suits the cause. But this characterization is not supported by a dispassionate reading of the issue here.
    - clavalle 12y ago
      Rights are not granted. Laws merely define approach to Rights.
      - hackinthebochs 12y ago
        I don't believe in natural rights. I believe all rights worth writing down are granted.
        clavalle 12y ago
        That suggests some authority is granting your Rights. What authority would that be?
        hackinthebochs 12y ago
        The collective might of society. The only natural right is "might makes right". Every "Right" we grant ourselves after that is simply a particular implementation of that initial principle. The key is to make sure your group of like minded folks have might on their side. A right necessarily entails a responsibility onto others. Without some framework of mutual agreement and enforcement, talk of rights is utterly impotent.
        clavalle 12y ago
        That flies in the face of the idea of a Democratic Republic where minorities Rights are protected from the whim of the majority. If the majority can simply redefine a Right, what is the point of elevating these things to the status of a Right?
        hackinthebochs 12y ago
        Within the framework of a society, whatever rules have been defined are law. Structuring society in such a way that minority rights are protected is a part of this. One doesn't have to reference some overarching 'natural rights' to have them protected: you simply write them down as one of the founding principles of your society. This is what the declaration of independence/bill of rights has done and its worked out pretty well so far. A right is always a reference to a constraint in behavior, agreed upon through some mutual framework, and enforced through the might instilled to that framework. But make no mistake, any of these "rights" will always be at the whim of the majority. The question simply becomes how big of a majority is required, and how well can your institutions withstand a serious attack on the minority by a (less than supermajority) majority. Speaking of "self-evident truths" will not save you in the face of such an assault. We must always be vigilant that the structure of our institutions are sound.
- kylemaxwell 12y ago
  Bullshit. Any opinion is okay but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people, you can expect opprobrium. This applies especially when leading an organization with values like Mozilla's.
- chrisdevereux 12y ago
  Any opinion is ok as long as you don't support slavery. There is always a range of opinions that people consider acceptable.
- dopamean 12y ago
  I'm sure they don't literally mean any view is accepted. Should they keep a CEO who liked to throw around racial epithets because "that's his view and we're about openness?" By donating to an anti gay marriage group he was actively working against openness and they decided that they're not quite open enough to support that.
  - lnlyplnt 12y ago
    You're correct, nobody is suggesting that a clansman or a neo nazi run mozilla. That said, 34% of americans oppose SSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#cite_note-16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marr...). 34% is a large minority, not a fringe element.
aray 12y ago
I think Eich as the CTO directly refutes that statement. It's not even clear whether he's just going back to being CTO, or leaving entirely.
- lnlyplnt 12y ago
  it was fine as long as nobody noticed. They didn't stick to their guns once he was at the top.
vidarh 12y ago
Do you have any evidence of that? There's a wide gap between "ordinary employees", and a CEO position that includes responsibility for diversity and ensuring a workplace free of discrimination, as well as the public perception of the organization. There are many views that can easily be reconciled with other roles that are very hard to reconcile with those responsibilities.
devindotcom 12y ago
You know what, maybe they're not. Having a philosophy of progressivism is a valid policy, and as long as you're not denying someone a job specifically because of their race, creed, party, skin color, disability, etc, it's fine. In this case, the man appears to be an unrepentant bigot whose ideas are not in line with much of the company.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
pkulak 12y ago
Actions bother me, not beliefs. And this guy donated $1000 to help hurt other people. That makes me angry, and it makes me not like any corporation he's head of. When that corporation cares what its customers think of them, they'll make a change in leadership. I don't know why everyone is making more of this than it is.
Aloisius 12y ago
You can have socially conservative views. You cross a line when you actively engage in oppressing other people because of your views.
bmj 12y ago
The issue here is that one side believes this is a civil rights issue, while the other side believes this to be a cultural issue. For the former, this is about repression, but for the latter it is about the moral fabric of culture. The latter is considered a political issue (like, say, prohibition), but the former is about human rights, which many believe raises the issue about the level of "mere" politics.
mjburgess 12y ago
Throughout this saga, and with religiously motivated bigotry in general there has been a politicization of the language and the issue as though it were not a moral concern, merely something a "social conservative" and a "social liberal" can disagree about with mutual tolerance. This isnt whether taxation is 38% or 35% this is whether people of a different sexual orientation are to be treated as people. I have very little patience with spineless calls for "respect" for those who which to preserve institutional disrespect. Tolerance is over-rated and has done very little for any one.
jakejake 12y ago
There is a touch of irony in being inclusive. You can't allow people who have exclusive views into your group!
jroseattle 12y ago
> people with socially conservative views The fallacy of this statement is that it conflates a citizen's unilateral restriction of freedom on another citizen as a "view". Don't fall for the argument due to soft labeling of what amounts to anything but equality.
bluthru 12y ago
This is classic "Stop oppressing my oppression!" If you don't want to be treated differently for treating people differently, you can't treat people differently.
danudey 12y ago
People with socially-conservative views are one thing. People who've donated significant cash sums to remove rights from a small percentage of the population for no practical reason is not a 'socially-conservative view', it's a discriminatory action.

_t5yy 12y ago

"any opinion is ok, as long as you're not conservative" I used to get this constantly in HS and now in college. This type of thinking is extremely toxic and I think can be very damaging for an institutions reputation. Mozilla is no longer about "openness" it's now about a much more generic liberal world view.

kylemaxwell 12y ago
Bullshit. Any opinion is okay but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people, you can expect opprobrium. This applies especially when leading an organization with values like Mozilla's.
- _t5yy 12y ago
  "Removing existing rights"? two years before that, this "right" never existed. For a right to be enshrined it has to survive, a majority of californians voted to approve prop 8...
- hackinthebochs 12y ago
  >but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people How is opposing redefining marriage (in the context of law) working to remove existing rights of people? Its framed in terms of removing rights/civil rights because it suits the cause. But this characterization is not supported by a dispassionate reading of the issue here.
  - clavalle 12y ago
    Rights are not granted. Laws merely define approach to Rights.
    - hackinthebochs 12y ago
      I don't believe in natural rights. I believe all rights worth writing down are granted.
      - clavalle 12y ago
        That suggests some authority is granting your Rights. What authority would that be?
        hackinthebochs 12y ago
        The collective might of society. The only natural right is "might makes right". Every "Right" we grant ourselves after that is simply a particular implementation of that initial principle. The key is to make sure your group of like minded folks have might on their side. A right necessarily entails a responsibility onto others. Without some framework of mutual agreement and enforcement, talk of rights is utterly impotent.
        clavalle 12y ago
        That flies in the face of the idea of a Democratic Republic where minorities Rights are protected from the whim of the majority. If the majority can simply redefine a Right, what is the point of elevating these things to the status of a Right?
        hackinthebochs 12y ago
        Within the framework of a society, whatever rules have been defined are law. Structuring society in such a way that minority rights are protected is a part of this. One doesn't have to reference some overarching 'natural rights' to have them protected: you simply write them down as one of the founding principles of your society. This is what the declaration of independence/bill of rights has done and its worked out pretty well so far. A right is always a reference to a constraint in behavior, agreed upon through some mutual framework, and enforced through the might instilled to that framework. But make no mistake, any of these "rights" will always be at the whim of the majority. The question simply becomes how big of a majority is required, and how well can your institutions withstand a serious attack on the minority by a (less than supermajority) majority. Speaking of "self-evident truths" will not save you in the face of such an assault. We must always be vigilant that the structure of our institutions are sound.
kylemaxwell 12y ago
Bullshit. Any opinion is okay but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people, you can expect opprobrium. This applies especially when leading an organization with values like Mozilla's.
chrisdevereux 12y ago
Any opinion is ok as long as you don't support slavery. There is always a range of opinions that people consider acceptable.
dopamean 12y ago
I'm sure they don't literally mean any view is accepted. Should they keep a CEO who liked to throw around racial epithets because "that's his view and we're about openness?" By donating to an anti gay marriage group he was actively working against openness and they decided that they're not quite open enough to support that.
- lnlyplnt 12y ago
  You're correct, nobody is suggesting that a clansman or a neo nazi run mozilla. That said, 34% of americans oppose SSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#cite_note-16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marr...). 34% is a large minority, not a fringe element.

aray 12y ago

I think Eich as the CTO directly refutes that statement. It's not even clear whether he's just going back to being CTO, or leaving entirely.

lnlyplnt 12y ago
it was fine as long as nobody noticed. They didn't stick to their guns once he was at the top.

vidarh 12y ago

Do you have any evidence of that? There's a wide gap between "ordinary employees", and a CEO position that includes responsibility for diversity and ensuring a workplace free of discrimination, as well as the public perception of the organization. There are many views that can easily be reconciled with other roles that are very hard to reconcile with those responsibilities.

devindotcom 12y ago

You know what, maybe they're not. Having a philosophy of progressivism is a valid policy, and as long as you're not denying someone a job specifically because of their race, creed, party, skin color, disability, etc, it's fine. In this case, the man appears to be an unrepentant bigot whose ideas are not in line with much of the company.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

pkulak 12y ago

Actions bother me, not beliefs. And this guy donated $1000 to help hurt other people. That makes me angry, and it makes me not like any corporation he's head of. When that corporation cares what its customers think of them, they'll make a change in leadership. I don't know why everyone is making more of this than it is.

Aloisius 12y ago

You can have socially conservative views. You cross a line when you actively engage in oppressing other people because of your views.

bmj 12y ago

The issue here is that one side believes this is a civil rights issue, while the other side believes this to be a cultural issue. For the former, this is about repression, but for the latter it is about the moral fabric of culture. The latter is considered a political issue (like, say, prohibition), but the former is about human rights, which many believe raises the issue about the level of "mere" politics.

mjburgess 12y ago

Throughout this saga, and with religiously motivated bigotry in general there has been a politicization of the language and the issue as though it were not a moral concern, merely something a "social conservative" and a "social liberal" can disagree about with mutual tolerance. This isnt whether taxation is 38% or 35% this is whether people of a different sexual orientation are to be treated as people. I have very little patience with spineless calls for "respect" for those who which to preserve institutional disrespect. Tolerance is over-rated and has done very little for any one.

jakejake 12y ago

There is a touch of irony in being inclusive. You can't allow people who have exclusive views into your group!

jroseattle 12y ago

> people with socially conservative views The fallacy of this statement is that it conflates a citizen's unilateral restriction of freedom on another citizen as a "view". Don't fall for the argument due to soft labeling of what amounts to anything but equality.

bluthru 12y ago

This is classic "Stop oppressing my oppression!" If you don't want to be treated differently for treating people differently, you can't treat people differently.

danudey 12y ago

People with socially-conservative views are one thing. People who've donated significant cash sums to remove rights from a small percentage of the population for no practical reason is not a 'socially-conservative view', it's a discriminatory action.