5 ms·

Should we have been tolerant of racist people in the 50s and 60s? Was being in favor of segregation a viewpoint people should have respected?

by gagaga 12y ago

xaa 12y ago
As I said, I disagree with my father-in-law's views, just like I disagree with Eich's views. I have tried to talk my father-in-law out of them. But I certainly don't think employment should be conditional on having the right set of beliefs. That way lies madness -- it's the very reason we forbid employment discrimination based on religion, for example. How can you possibly determine which privately-held beliefs are "too bad" for you to deserve being employed. Also, Mozilla's mission has absolutely nothing to do with gay rights. Arguments based on "freedom" and "openness" are so highly metaphorical as to be meaningless, as those words mean different things to different people. As another example, I think the conservative approach to economics is disastrous and would be ruinous if adopted. But do I therefore think that conservatives shouldn't be hired in jobs totally unrelated to economic policy? Of course not.
- albedoa 12y ago
  > How can you possibly determine which privately-held beliefs are "too bad" for you to deserve being employed. First, it wasn't his beliefs that lost him his employment — it was his actions. Second, while it's not always as clear, donating money to oppress a group in 2008 is an objectively abhorrent act. You know it when you see it.
  - ralfd 12y ago
    But it passed in 2008. That was democracy. With your line of reasoning it would be right to fire a majority of California.
    - albedoa 12y ago
      Democracies and majorities don't determine what is right. In fact, they have historically produced some nasty policies and held some nasty views, respectively. > With your line of reasoning it would be right to fire a majority of California. Firing someone for political activities is currently illegal in California, if I am reading the law correctly. Though I don't imagine half of Californians would be out a job tomorrow even if they weren't protected by law.
- mkessy 12y ago
  "Mozilla's mission has absolutely nothing to do with gay rights." So it is not Mozilla's best interest to makes sure that all their employees are working in a comfortable work environment? If most of the people you are supposed to be leading feel uncomfortable with your views on human rights how is the company supposed to operate properly? What if he said he opposed interracial marriage? Surely that's just a set of beliefs? Mozilla's mission has nothing to do with racial equality. Your equating of economic policy beliefs and gay rights is quite telling.

Should we have been tolerant of racist people in the 50s and 60s? Was being in favor of segregation a viewpoint people should have respected?

by gagaga 12y ago

Should we have been tolerant of racist people in the 50s and 60s? Was being in favor of segregation a viewpoint people should have respected?

xaa 12y ago

As I said, I disagree with my father-in-law's views, just like I disagree with Eich's views. I have tried to talk my father-in-law out of them. But I certainly don't think employment should be conditional on having the right set of beliefs. That way lies madness -- it's the very reason we forbid employment discrimination based on religion, for example. How can you possibly determine which privately-held beliefs are "too bad" for you to deserve being employed. Also, Mozilla's mission has absolutely nothing to do with gay rights. Arguments based on "freedom" and "openness" are so highly metaphorical as to be meaningless, as those words mean different things to different people. As another example, I think the conservative approach to economics is disastrous and would be ruinous if adopted. But do I therefore think that conservatives shouldn't be hired in jobs totally unrelated to economic policy? Of course not.

albedoa 12y ago
> How can you possibly determine which privately-held beliefs are "too bad" for you to deserve being employed. First, it wasn't his beliefs that lost him his employment — it was his actions. Second, while it's not always as clear, donating money to oppress a group in 2008 is an objectively abhorrent act. You know it when you see it.
- ralfd 12y ago
  But it passed in 2008. That was democracy. With your line of reasoning it would be right to fire a majority of California.
  - albedoa 12y ago
    Democracies and majorities don't determine what is right. In fact, they have historically produced some nasty policies and held some nasty views, respectively. > With your line of reasoning it would be right to fire a majority of California. Firing someone for political activities is currently illegal in California, if I am reading the law correctly. Though I don't imagine half of Californians would be out a job tomorrow even if they weren't protected by law.
mkessy 12y ago
"Mozilla's mission has absolutely nothing to do with gay rights." So it is not Mozilla's best interest to makes sure that all their employees are working in a comfortable work environment? If most of the people you are supposed to be leading feel uncomfortable with your views on human rights how is the company supposed to operate properly? What if he said he opposed interracial marriage? Surely that's just a set of beliefs? Mozilla's mission has nothing to do with racial equality. Your equating of economic policy beliefs and gay rights is quite telling.