But making public your support for Trump — or the KKK, or NAMBLA, or Hacker News — is a completely different thing. You can and should be judged on the basis of the ideas and opinions that you promote.
On Liberty: Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.
That reminds me of the quotation:
"A new idea is a beautiful and fragile thing. Attack people, not ideas."
I don't know who said that first, but I love that quotation. It mocks itself (and other witticisms), and at the same time reminds you to focus your energy attacking ideas rather than people.
In extreme cases, someone can have a lot of bad ideas and you need to challenge them personally. But that's only in extreme cases, and doesn't apply transitively to supporters of the person.
Usually people are judged based on the ideas that those who oppose them hold.
Not in the context of your employment, you shouldn't. Really, where does this attitude come from that one's employer should get a veto over everything one does when off the clock? It's usually from people who are always complaining about evil corporations stepping on people's rights, too. I don't get it.
I don't think what he did say was quite eloquent and it was clearly emotionally heated, but it didn't imply nor state that Trump voters are unwelcome.
He very explicitly says that any employee that disagrees with his statement should resign and the "statement" included his political views.
Will wearing a t-shirt with "I heart America" get you fired at GrubHub? It's on Matt's list of no-nos: nationalist.
Nationalism and expressing love or pride in one's country (patriotism) are two different things, I think. They can be felt simultaneously but can also be expressed separately. Nationalism focusses more on cultural background, language, and heritage, which "I ︎<3 America" doesn't necessarily convey.
I don't know how all of this will shake out at GrubHub. The most I've heard of the company has been around this incident. There's a lot of close and sometimes purposefully uncharitable parsing of language and cherry-picking going around in general.
I would agree that they are distinct, but very much related.
> Nationalism focusses more on cultural background, language, and heritage, which "I ︎<3 America" doesn't necessarily convey.
Ok, then, how about this t-shirt of Mickey/Heart/Flag: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/155866837074483117/
Sure. If they weren't, you wouldn't have put forth the example you did.
"how about this t-shirt of Mickey/Heart/Flag:"
I don't understand what you're getting at (nor am I interested in defining the working attire policy of GrubHub). My point was that there can be a meaningful distinction between nationalism and wearing a "I <3 America" T-shirt, which it looked like you were equating. If you have a point, please make it.
> [from your OP] Nationalism focusses more on cultural background, language, and heritage, which "I ︎<3 America" doesn't necessarily convey.
I picked an "American" cultural icon in conformance with your definition of nationalism.
> If you have a point, please make it.
Social commentary on the current attempt to render expressions of affinity for one's "cultural background, language, and heritage" as socially unacceptable, and indicative of regressive and/or antisocial mindset, and possibly cause for loss of livelihood in companies such as Grubhub.
I'm getting that impression from you in this discussion as well. Given the email as a whole and his follow-up, I don't get the impression of a CEO that would have someone fired over either of the T-shirt examples you've given. So far in this thread, that's been implied by your argument, and that's the only thing you've put forth. I also don't think that's everything you have to say on the topic, and I'm not going to assume what that is. Building straw men is in no way a useful exercise for constructive discussion.
I think there's a lot to be said for your statement:
"Social commentary on the current attempt to render expressions of affinity for one's "cultural background, language, and heritage" as socially unacceptable, and indicative of regressive and/or antisocial mindset"
I also don't see that being fairly applied across the board by a lot of people making arguments like this.
As stated before, I don't know that much about GrubHub or the CEO. If there is other evidence based on his behavior or experiences at GrubHub, that would add to this discussion of the letter and its affect on GrubHub. As I don't have any, I don't have anything more to say on the topic.
Where does he say that?
Obviously only excerpts from the full email[0], but seems to contradict what you just said pretty heavily. If I was someone who voted for Trump that worked at Grubhub, I know that I would have been afraid for my job after that email. Possibly even still would be, and might even consider moving jobs in order to not be afraid of that.
[0] The full original text of his email is at the bottom of this page: http://media.grubhub.com/media/press-releases/press-release-...
It's referring to things like ridiculing or mocking minorities, immigrants, and disabled people. Which I think we can all agree are things that Trump did and have no place in a workplace like Grubhub, no?
But I think things get more complicated in the current environment where people who have voted for Trump have basically been labeled the same as him. It's apparently possible to have a "hateful attitude", or be racist, or whatever else, which can get you fired at GrubHub, by having voted for Trump.
But honestly, regardless of arguing intent or whatever, I think the crux of the argument boils down to this: If you had voted for Trump and worked at GrubHub, would you be comfortable going to the CEO and saying "I voted for Trump" without fearing for your job, after that email? I would imagine the number of people at the company who don't/didn't feel that is non-zero (purely based on a vote, not based on if anyone there is actually racist), and I view that as completely inappropriate.
The CEO never said Trump voters aren't welcome. That was the original comment that I disagreed with. It's factually incorrect to say that's what the CEO said.
"the new administration deserves our open minds and a chance to lead... never stop believing that the fight for what's right is worth it"
Quick example, as awful as sexual harrassment is - the code of conduct at your workplace - it doesn't say - Sexual harassment (like the kind Trump does) will not be tolerated. They manage to get a point across regardless.
Anything to back that up?
http://atom-morgan.github.io/in-defense-of-douglas-crockford
This appears to have been the instigator:
Fired for a donation that supported enshrining discrimination in a state constitution. It was a good firing.
Support nasty causes, win nasty prizes.
Plus, the point is, if we purge people based on their political opinions, why bother with democracy?
What is legal is not the same as what is moral or ethical.
Figuring out how to tolerate dissent is an issue I think a lot of people are trying to figure out right now, as your statement is pointing to.
He may have good reasons to think that, which aren't forbidden by law. It was legal, it is moral for some people, it is ethical for others, what about we let him do his job of managing a technical company? Companies shouldn't be forced to fire people who are considered as "witches" by the people, as long as they're competent in their job. It takes a huge amount of time to train CEOs and keep replicas on hot standby in a company, if the company has to second-guess the people's opinion about the politics (or sexual life) of CEOs, it's bad for the economy. And if we practice a witch hunt at every level of companies, it quickly goes unethical. See this quote from GitHub's new Diversity Director:
> "Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women"
You bring up good points regarding the training and the costs of replacing people. Those costs are balanced against the value brought to the company, right?
One of the reasons I think it's difficult to discuss as when people start giving examples as to what should be tolerated and what shouldn't, some people are going to think it's absurd, and take issue with the discussion as a whole.
For the sake of argument, I'll try.
Let's say one of the goals of the company is to provide honeymoon packages and the target market is gay couples. An employee makes a donation in support of something like Prop 8. Is there a conflict there? Are they a good fit for the company? If not, should they look for someone else? Perhaps the person shouldn't have been hired in the first place. Should the company be able to make that decision based on knowing the candidate made such a donation? Should the candidate look elsewhere and not consider a position at the company? Can a company's goals change over time? Can a company's goals include those broader than just the product they market?
You mention "let him do his job of managing a technical company". I think there's tension here, as well (independent of the situation at Mozilla). People are not purely rational beings. How people get along in the workplace is important to its overall effectiveness. What's acceptable in one workplace is not going to be acceptable in another, similar to how people have different circles of friends. Should companies be able to hire for fit? Fire for it?
I think there are some very real questions there. And a lot of contentious issues. Please don't assume my answers to all of these questions, either. You're guaranteed to be wrong as I haven't come to a firm conclusion on all of them :)
If toleration of political opinion is a settled issue for you, please share :) Can you think of a political position that should not be tolerated?
The whole "what's legal is not necessarily moral or ethical" is another kettle of fish, which is the point I was making initially. Your point about what's moral for some people and ethical for others points to some agreement on your part, doesn't it? Perhaps one difference is whether or not we agree that a company can or should have an ethical purpose or should reflect the ethics of the people who own the company or work of the company. Or do business for the company, for that matter.
I don't expect you to have answers to all of these questions. I'd be surprised if you did. If you don't think these are valid questions, I'd be interested to hear which ones are invalid and why.
Lots of people knew proposition 8 was reprehensible and protested accordingly. Eich chose not to listen.
> if we purge people based on their political opinions, why bother with democracy
Purging people based on political opinions is exactly how democracy is supposed to function. We regularly vote politicians out of office because of their political opinions. What other criterion should a democracy use to select leaders?
What does "purging" mean to you in this case? You've now provided two examples: firing and voting. What level of political disagreement justifies what actions? I don't think there's widespread agreement, and it's something I'm trying to figure out for myself.
Voting someone out of office is firing them. We're talking about firing.
So for the sake of LGBT Mozilla employees, I'm glad Eich was shown the door. I'm not interested in entertaining a bunch of fluffy questions about heuristics, expression of opinion, what "purging" really means, or whatever. That's just noise.
Lest we forget:
- Brendan Eich, former CEO of Mozilla, fired for a donation,
- Douglas Crockford, uninvited from NodeVember, the general opinion is that he said something that a woman didn't like,
- Tom Preston-Werner, co-founder and former CEO of GitHub, upon an unproven accusation,
- And all people and the 2 colleagues who have been fired in smaller companies, in smaller events, without proof, only based on lynching and without demonstratedly due process to determine what they're guilty about (@mr-kanks from PyCon, I think about you every day I talk with a woman at work).