8 ms·

Except that, as has been demonstrated, the position itself carries particular requirements for the candidate's personal political opinions.

untog 12y ago
Semantics are exactly what makes this difficult. You might say "requirements for the candidate's personal political opinions", others might say "requirements for the candidate to not hold offensive, discriminatory political opinions".
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- masklinn 12y ago
  > others might say "requirements for the candidate to not hold offensive, discriminatory political opinions". Or just you know don't give significant amount of money to enshrine your offensive and discriminatory political opinions into law, expect open arms when nominated to head a company generally considered progressive then whine that it's unfair to scrutinise and criticise your actions.
  - vgharl 12y ago
    > significant amount of money Is that what we're calling $1000 today? That's not even rent money in the bad areas of the Bay Area. > then whine that it's unfair Citation please. I really can't believe HN right now, trying to deny the fact that prop 8 passed. Unbelievable. Let's all rewrite history, getting rid of an inconvenient fact. Oh, and screw political freedom too. Your sense of offensiveness is offending.
    - untog 12y ago
      trying to deny the fact that prop 8 passed Who is trying to deny that? What relevance does it even have to what we're talking about here?
      - vgharl 12y ago
        Because if you are a reasonable person, then you realize crucifying a guy for having a consensus, mainstream opinion is absurd. It's revisionist, retro-active punishing from the political losers here. A majority of California agreed with him. Not only that, but targeting Mozilla but ignoring JavaScript is the absolute height of hypocrisy and hollowless grandstanding, done by people that have a financial stake in JavaScript, but not Mozilla. In short, fuck these people.
        untog 12y ago
        I'm not sure what defines a "consensus, mainstream opinion", but support for gay marriage has been over 50% for a few years now. Hardly a definitive yes, but it's certainly not a consensus to the opposite. In California specifically, 61% supported gay marriage in 2013[1]. And he wasn't 'crucified' for having the opinion, it was because he actively contributed to a campaign. Holding a private opinion and financially contributing to a cause are quite different things. Not only that, but targeting Mozilla but ignoring JavaScript is the absolute height of hypocrisy It absolutely is not. Does "JavaScript" pay Eich a salary? Is it a money making entity? Does he even have anything to do with the day to day running of it? Of course not. [1] http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf
        vgharl 12y ago
        > 61% supported gay marriage in 2013 So????? You do realize that we're talking about Prop 8, which was 2008 here. Prop 8 passed. Again, stop this revisionist bullshit. > Does "JavaScript" pay Eich a salary? Eich's entire fucking resume could be: "Created JavaScript" That's it. He would sail from conference to conference until the end of bloody time, raking in thousands if not millions of dollars here. OkCupid wanted it both ways. They wanted to keep their skin out of the game when it would hurt their bottom line, but wanted to make political points for that easy PR gain. So they targeted Mozilla.
        untog 12y ago
    - masklinn 12y ago
      > Is that what we're calling $1000 today? Yes, $1000 is significant. $5 is not. > Citation please. https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ > I really can't believe HN right now, trying to deny the fact that prop 8 passed. So you're just making shit up as you go now? > Let's all rewrite history, getting rid of an inconvenient fact. Given you apparently aren't able to read things written on your screen, that's fucking golden. > Oh, and screw political freedom too. You're politically free, you're free to be whatever bigoted asshole you want to be. And others are free to demonstrate their disagreement, which they did with Eich.
      - vgharl 12y ago
        > Yes, $1000 is significant. $5 is not. Let me guess: you decided this just now? Right? You're quite the asshole yourself. > And others are free to demonstrate their disagreement, which they did with Eich. Eich is not the leader of a fucking movement!! He's a private individual, that supported a cause in private. He's not Hitler, and this is not the Night of the Long Knives here. You are advocating mob rule and mob justice. That is a sin far worse than supporting a movement to prevent gay marriage.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Others might say "requirements that the incumbent -- not candidate -- be able and willing to effectively manage PR issues that affect the company's interests, whatever their origin or relation to the incumbent."
- nailer 12y ago
  If the majority of people have offensive opinions, are they still offensive?
  - untog 12y ago
    Well, obviously, 'offensive' is a very subjective thing. People can still be offended by an opinion held by a majority, yes.
    - nailer 12y ago
      Perhaps then being offensive isn't a good criteria to judge something by then.
chasing 12y ago
Yup. The CEO of a high profile non-profit should not be a bigot.

untog 12y ago

Semantics are exactly what makes this difficult. You might say "requirements for the candidate's personal political opinions", others might say "requirements for the candidate to not hold offensive, discriminatory political opinions".

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
masklinn 12y ago
> others might say "requirements for the candidate to not hold offensive, discriminatory political opinions". Or just you know don't give significant amount of money to enshrine your offensive and discriminatory political opinions into law, expect open arms when nominated to head a company generally considered progressive then whine that it's unfair to scrutinise and criticise your actions.
- vgharl 12y ago
  > significant amount of money Is that what we're calling $1000 today? That's not even rent money in the bad areas of the Bay Area. > then whine that it's unfair Citation please. I really can't believe HN right now, trying to deny the fact that prop 8 passed. Unbelievable. Let's all rewrite history, getting rid of an inconvenient fact. Oh, and screw political freedom too. Your sense of offensiveness is offending.
  - untog 12y ago
    trying to deny the fact that prop 8 passed Who is trying to deny that? What relevance does it even have to what we're talking about here?
    - vgharl 12y ago
      Because if you are a reasonable person, then you realize crucifying a guy for having a consensus, mainstream opinion is absurd. It's revisionist, retro-active punishing from the political losers here. A majority of California agreed with him. Not only that, but targeting Mozilla but ignoring JavaScript is the absolute height of hypocrisy and hollowless grandstanding, done by people that have a financial stake in JavaScript, but not Mozilla. In short, fuck these people.
      - untog 12y ago
        I'm not sure what defines a "consensus, mainstream opinion", but support for gay marriage has been over 50% for a few years now. Hardly a definitive yes, but it's certainly not a consensus to the opposite. In California specifically, 61% supported gay marriage in 2013[1]. And he wasn't 'crucified' for having the opinion, it was because he actively contributed to a campaign. Holding a private opinion and financially contributing to a cause are quite different things. Not only that, but targeting Mozilla but ignoring JavaScript is the absolute height of hypocrisy It absolutely is not. Does "JavaScript" pay Eich a salary? Is it a money making entity? Does he even have anything to do with the day to day running of it? Of course not. [1] http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf
        vgharl 12y ago
        > 61% supported gay marriage in 2013 So????? You do realize that we're talking about Prop 8, which was 2008 here. Prop 8 passed. Again, stop this revisionist bullshit. > Does "JavaScript" pay Eich a salary? Eich's entire fucking resume could be: "Created JavaScript" That's it. He would sail from conference to conference until the end of bloody time, raking in thousands if not millions of dollars here. OkCupid wanted it both ways. They wanted to keep their skin out of the game when it would hurt their bottom line, but wanted to make political points for that easy PR gain. So they targeted Mozilla.
        untog 12y ago
  - masklinn 12y ago
    > Is that what we're calling $1000 today? Yes, $1000 is significant. $5 is not. > Citation please. https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ > I really can't believe HN right now, trying to deny the fact that prop 8 passed. So you're just making shit up as you go now? > Let's all rewrite history, getting rid of an inconvenient fact. Given you apparently aren't able to read things written on your screen, that's fucking golden. > Oh, and screw political freedom too. You're politically free, you're free to be whatever bigoted asshole you want to be. And others are free to demonstrate their disagreement, which they did with Eich.
    - vgharl 12y ago
      > Yes, $1000 is significant. $5 is not. Let me guess: you decided this just now? Right? You're quite the asshole yourself. > And others are free to demonstrate their disagreement, which they did with Eich. Eich is not the leader of a fucking movement!! He's a private individual, that supported a cause in private. He's not Hitler, and this is not the Night of the Long Knives here. You are advocating mob rule and mob justice. That is a sin far worse than supporting a movement to prevent gay marriage.
dragonwriter 12y ago
Others might say "requirements that the incumbent -- not candidate -- be able and willing to effectively manage PR issues that affect the company's interests, whatever their origin or relation to the incumbent."
nailer 12y ago
If the majority of people have offensive opinions, are they still offensive?
- untog 12y ago
  Well, obviously, 'offensive' is a very subjective thing. People can still be offended by an opinion held by a majority, yes.
  - nailer 12y ago
    Perhaps then being offensive isn't a good criteria to judge something by then.

chasing 12y ago

Yup. The CEO of a high profile non-profit should not be a bigot.