Now that FOSS is established, and there are developers that have grown up with FOSS existing unchallenged in society, political agnosticism isn't seen as important.
In contemporary Western culture, ideology seems to be taking the place of religion in terms of regulating morality. Social media has been instrumental in this transition. We're now seeing the emergence of global, ideological tribes that can communicate in realtime. Those who have power within these tribes are largely untouchable within the sphere of social media: they have the power to direct followers to lobby against others for perceived abuses, yet the power they wield intimidates many who would criticize them for abuse of power.
You are either highly naive about FOSS or you've just defined all the vicious politics in FOSS as being just and righteous -- and that is exactly the justifications that the lynchmobs and their leaders in this article hold towards their victims as well.
At least on Facebook you can elucidate your thoughts, defend your opinions, and otherwise make an effort too look like a person who appreciates nuance, rather than someone whose entire intellectual capacity is captured in 140 characters.
It's not dissimilar to traditional news media in that respect -- "if it bleeds, it leads" and all that. Humans like to pay attention to other humans, and are fascinated by bad behaviour and messy accidents. Newspapers and TV channels are always after something that provokes their readers and gets them emotionally engaged at a fight/flight level. And twitter and other social media that permit unrestricted engagement play to this -- that's precisely why they've grown so big.
(Facebook is in no way an improvement unless you lock it down to friends-only. After all, the difference between 4000 characters and 140 isn't that great, when you're trying to discuss complex issues, especially if you're not very articulate or thoughtful in the first place.)
This is definitely not true. As lunatic as they may seem, many of the people in these online mobs are at least somewhat reasonable, and if they were able to see context (for example, a comment or edit on the original post) it would pretty seriously attenuate the virality of stuff like this. Twitter is drive-by conversation: there's practically no possibility for context, for clarification, etc. Hell half the time I'm exposed to Twitter, I end up looking at fragments of conversation whose context is pretty damn painful to nail down. A shitty interface like that is a hell of a lot more efficient at instigating mobs over misunderstandings.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage
More from Merideth: http://maradydd.livejournal.com/530110.html
The phenomenon reminds me quite strongly of Orwell's Two Minutes Hate from 1984 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate
Even if most people don't read more than a sentence or two, it's possible to look like a real human being, whereas on Twitter you get your 140 characters, and that's that. By the nature of the network, nobody cares or sees the ten tweets that come before/after the offending one.
There are people on both sides of an issue who are genuinely, mistakenly trying to have conversations. On Twitter, where the UI is designed to strip context away.
Imagine you are at a party of 100 people, all having their own small conversations in of two to five people. Then imagine someone throws a switch and every single thing said is heard by everyone in the room, but only fleetingly and with no time to imagine the context.
And sometimes Twitter's culture makes it really hard to find context. If someone responds directly to a tweet, you can see that in the conversation, but a manual RT destroys that chain.
The real solution is that we have to recognize that our lizard brains love beating the shit out of people. We've put on a layer of civilization that stops us from doing that in person, but it's just as bad to do it online. Once we recognize that we can be monsters, we can figure out how to stop doing it, or at least do it less.
Communicating with friends? fine, perfectly acceptable, PM or share with some reduced circle.
Trying to be funny in the world where someone could get butthurt over a joke that was snooped from the conversation not intended for their ears? You're asking for it (for the lack of better wording).
And yes I do realize the irony about this comment, feel free to downvote for 'victim blaming' if you don't understand the message.
Twitter & FB aren't the problem. A lack of awareness and judgement is.
Lack of awareness of the fundamental error of attribution, and rushing to judgement based on far too little information.
Anyone who thinks they can reasonably judge anyone based on any single post, much less 140 characters, is not doing a great job of being a citizen in the 21st century. Everything we say can be misunderstood, and if you can't imagine anyone tweeting something you don't like without them being racist/sexist/whateverist that is simply because your imagination sucks as a tool for knowing reality, just like mine, just like everyone else's.
What we can or cannot imagine has absolutely nothing to do with what is real. This is the lesson of three hundred years of science. This is why ideas must be publicly tested by systematic observation, controlled experiment and Bayesian inference to be counted as knowledge.
This is not to say we must never judge, but that judgement is far more difficult than most people realize, and they are far too quick to do it based on far too little information and far too much imagination. [edit: I should have said "we are far too quick..." The habit of judgement is hard to break!]
I'm saying she did something really stupid. I don't know anything else about the woman bar the fact that she seems to have a very nice taste in New York social spots.
Anyone who thinks they can reasonably judge anyone based on any single post, much less 140 characters, is not doing a great job of being a citizen in the 21st century.
^ If you're referring to me, as I said, I'm not judging her. But it's great that you see fit to lay down a marker for what constitutes being a good citizen.
What we can or cannot imagine has absolutely nothing to do with what is real. This is the lesson of three hundred years of science. This is why ideas must be publicly tested by systematic observation, controlled experiment and Bayesian inference to be counted as knowledge.
^wat
This is not to say we must never judge, but that judgement is far more difficult than most people realize, and they are far too quick to do it based on far too little information and far too much imagination.
^ Agreed, but unfortunately thats a symptom a lot of the internet suffers (arguably, feeds) from.
Have you ever posted a joke that might offend?
Have you ever linked to one or more past projects?
Are you aware that you can not delete your account or your posts?
You might also get put into a Chilling Effects database, assuming HN contributes to that (I honestly don't know, but it seems plausible). These are significantly less public than they were prior to the Google removal, though.
The only problem is that you don't know what you don't know right up until it smacks you in the face like this.
It's kind of weird to think that Brendan Eich is still active in the web standards community, even though he's been forced to leave Mozilla. A man without a company.
Losing one of the only people in a position to fight against DRM who had the will to do so is another blow. The end result as I see it is the social justice community gets a "victory", religious people at Mozilla learn they're not to take part in our political process, and those who were left gave up the fight against DRM. Not that they had a choice, how do you ride into battle short a CEO and a CTO, and while licking your wounds from a vicious boycott/smear campaign?
Firefox circa Eich on DRM: https://brendaneich.com/2013/10/the-bridge-of-khazad-drm/
Firefox post boycott on DRM: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challen...
Imagine if someone with a lot of twitter followers interpreted the statement you just made here as a veiled death threat, unleashing a raging mob against you, ultimately leading the utter destruction of your life as you knew it. Would you say that you were being held accountable for what you just said and that any society that did not do that to you had to be one where no one was being held accountable for anything they say?
Demanding that people should be held accountable for what they say is so generic that it allows for any kind of reaction to just about anything anyone could ever say. The islamists who killed the Charlie Hebdo caroonists could have said the exact same thing.
Proportionality is important.
Also, Sacco's case clearly shows that there are always lots of people out there who are waiting for an opportunity to bully others, regardless of how contrived and intellectually disingenuous the pretext may be. Portraying a joke about racism or race relations as a racist joke is just daft. I can't believe that many people honestly felt that Sacco was being racist. They just wanted to bully someone.
The problem is just the reaction of a mob of arm chair vigilantes thinking they are each delivering some unique tiny bit of justice with their comments, emails or calls. It's a death by a thousand cuts, not to mention the nut-cases who send horrible threats of violence and worse.
It's obviously something ingrained in our DNA, it reminds me of nature documentaries - watching a group of apes attack one of their own who they perceive as weak.
[…]
[Harding:]"A 'pecking party'? I fear your quaint down-home speech is wasted on me, my friend. I have not the slightest inclination what you're talking about."
"Why then, I'll just explain it to you." McMurphy raises his voice; though he doesn't look at the other Acutes listening behind him, it's them he's talking to. "The flock gets sight of a spot of blood on some chicken and they all go to peckin' at it, see, till they rip the chicken to shreds, blood and bones and feathers. But usually a couple of the flock gets spotted in the fracas, then it's their turn. And a few more gets spots and gets pecked to death, and more and more. Oh, a peckin' party can wipe out the whole flock in a matter of a few hours, buddy, I seen it. A mighty awesome sight. The only way to prevent it-with chickens-is to clip blinders on them. So's they can't see."
We're raised on stories of Abraham Lincoln and Rosa Parks and we idealize how important they were to society. Now as people leave childhood and begin facing their own complete lack of importance think they can join the social justice fight and simply by bullying people really be somebody. They'll spend hours a day in a rage at their keyboards while thinking what they're doing is really benefiting society.
Getting outraged politically is a quick and easy path to a social identity and group membership. That does make us sound a bit like apes....
Threats of violence, loss of job, weeks long campaigns -- none of that is an appropriate response.
It's ironic that this is lost on people who argue the most loudly for inclusiveness.
What CamperBob2 said was probably inflammatory but probably also right. If you're against same-sex marriage you're probably on the wrong side of history.
> If you're against same-sex marriage you're probably on the wrong side of history.
The problem I have with this is that it condemns the vast majority of society, throughout the vast majority of history. Understanding someone's views while stripping the context of society's views at the time is foolish. In 2015, being religious (e.g.) isn't a good excuse for opposing gay marriage in 2008 (when a majority of society was in opposition to gay mariage, btw). Hypothetically, in 2025, maybe support for Israel's actions vis-a-vis Palestine will be widely considered the new apartheid. Similarly, what if in 10 years, we decide that a robust social welfare system in the US is a moral imperative (there are many who already feel that the way poverty is treated in this country is a huge moral failing)?
Does that mean all of my friends in 2015 who donate to and participate in organizations and rallies in support of Israel should be forever blacklisted from public positions? Should all the people you know who in 2015 are opposed to robust welfare/basic income and the accompanying tax increases be forbidden forever from rising to certain positions of authority in entirely-unrelated fields?
_BUT_ (and I'm largely paraphrasing) when asked about this issue and same-sex marriage, Eich pretty much sidestepped the question and refused to answer it, citing how he has never discriminating against anyone. And to a lot of people that wasn't good enough of a response coming from a CEO of a company that prides itself on its diversity, especially when they also have gay employees.
Anyways my actual point about this originally was that Eich's situation doesn't really parallel the situation Sacco went through. For one, Eich's situation was pretty enclosed to the tech world, whereas Sacco was a worldwide trending topic that brought her a lot of unwanted attention. I also doubt Eich got called a whore, bitch, slut, etc much. And to say Eich was "bullied" in the way Sacco was bullied is laughable (Not saying you said it, although I think one of the ancestor posts mentioned it).
I actually thought this was the least controversial part of my comment. This isn't just my anecdotal opinion, it's pretty well supported by polls if I'm not mistaken. Do you mind if I ask on what basis you think the opposite is true?
> when asked about this issue and same-sex marriage, Eich pretty much sidestepped the question and refused to answer it, citing how he has never discriminating against anyone. And to a lot of people that wasn't good enough of a response coming from a CEO of a company that prides itself on its diversity, especially when they also have gay employees.
This is a more compelling point actually. On the other hand, it's easy for me to imagine that he just (like me) failed to comprehend the level of lunacy he was facing and figured the best way to handle a manufactured controversy was to not give it more attention than necessary. On top of that, I feel like I'd also be much more morally inclined to emphasize that political views are irrelevant, rather than pander by saying "oh I've completely changed forever" and implicitly approving of the intolerance implied by political litmus tests (regardless of your location on the political spectrum).
> I also doubt Eich got called a whore, bitch, slut, etc much. And to say Eich was "bullied" in the way Sacco was bullied is laughable
As you said, it wasn't me who compared them. That being said, I don't think using the term "bullied" for either person is particularly unwarranted though.
Living in a democracy I'm uneasy when I see large-scale mobs form to punish and intimidate people for participating in our political process in "the wrong way." Take note that I've been a long-time supporter of same-sex marriage, but seeing Eich get forced out by the group I always supported because they were so innocent and powerless made me reconsider some things.
Go ahead try and see how far people get. Not very.
I'll put up with an F'ed up president/prime minister with whom I disagree to the utmost, but I'm not going to move out of the country. I'd do what any civilized person would do and avail myself the tools at hand, vote, in the case of president/PM/Chancellor. But I'm not going to get in a tizzy over it.
I think there's a point you come to in life where you realize that no matter how righteous you think your personal cause is, it's your framework which makes it so. Live in another era, in greek times or babylonian times, their idea of what was right and wrong were different due to their frameworks. People who believe that when they are old and frail should go out to pasture to be consumed by nature are no less right than the person who believes in life prolonging drugs, euthanasia or hospice care.
I'm also not saying we're insignificant beings and nothing really matters in the face of the universe. Just that with few exceptions, like murder, etc. we can't say 'this is the righteous way', the enlightened way.
When I work for someone, when I buy something, there is no further symbolism -it's unconditional. I make a transaction for service or product. You pay me, I work for you do do x. I pay you and I get service or product x in return. I don't expect any conditions like, oh, you must say sweet things to your partner, don't think nasty thoughts in your dreams, else this breaks some implicit agreement, etc.
https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2014/03/mozilla-statement-on-... https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
By saying that they're "next to the KKK", you're marking your opposition as not only immoral, but beyond reprieve. If you're willing to simplify the moral landscape to a single line onto which you've placed yourself squarely at the "good" end, you're taking a gravely irresponsible logical shortcut.
EDIT: I foolishly used 'retribution' in place of 'reprieve', thus making my above comment confusing and nonsensical.
Can you elaborate on that? Several prominent racists of the KKK era, including people like Robert Byrd and George Wallace, ultimately renounced their earlier views. Eich is free to do the same whenever he wants. He has not, as far as I'm aware.
It doesn't return. You can't be sure if it worked.
And, most importantly, you don't have the ability to say "no, no, it started against the wrong person" or "okay, that's enough." It will run at its own speed, maybe finding a new target when the first one is destroyed.
You have to appreciate the difference between actionable speech and expressing an opinion.
Or just go and post on 4chan anonymously.
I will still post economic or political-ish things, under my real name, but they're generally not very controversial, they're references to articles, book or blogs ( usually that I'd like to see read a bit more ).
It's essentially online bullying by people that want to
silence you for having an opinion that is different than
their own.
The equivalent comparison to Eich would be if he made a joke ending with "... Oh wait, I'm not gay" or something.
(And wasn't a lot of the Mozilla thing really a disguised way at getting back at him for JavaScript?)
Maybe he shouldn't have participated in an offline bullying campaign against an entire segment of the population.
No one deserves to be bullied or harassed but consequences need to exist to actions.
Clearly, you do interpret her statement to be an offensive, racist remark, but by her own admission, she instead was commenting on how "[l]iving in America puts us in a bit of a bubble when it comes to what is going on in the third world. I was making fun of that bubble."
Whether or not her explanation for the off-color is truly genuine is up for debate, but scuttling somebody's life and career for something that only might have been a racist remark doesn't seem all that fair to me and (it would appear) a significant fraction of commenters here.
However, it's pretty easy to see how it could be considered a racist and bigoted tweet and I'd expect her to have realised this before sending it.
EDIT: I totally agree that scuttling someones life on career off the back of one tweet is unfair - I 100% agree with that. As I said in the original comment, the bullying she experienced was totally unfair.
I don't believe, however, that her career is ruined by it - evidenced by the fact that she's now gainfully employed. I think it's definitely a red flag on her resume but by doing volunteer service after the fact I'd be surprised if any company wouldn't see this as "I did something dumb, I learnt and grew from it".
Professionals in PR should naturally be extra-vigilant about issues like these.
given that, as she said in the article, "only an insane person would think that white people can't get AIDS", and the phrasing is obviously comic (dour opening, sudden & glib reversal, edgy punchline), I literally cannot read the tweet as bigoted or racist. Is the joke off-color? yes. Is it obviously self-deprecating, and aware of the fucked-up-ed-ness of white & first-world privilege? yes.
^Agreed but Louis CK is a world famous comedian. When he speaks I know to take most of what he says in jest. Theres a context I can apply when he speaks.
A counterpoint to this would be that she had a small following on Twitter, most of whom she may know in real life, who likely know that she was joking. They can apply a similar context because of their relationship with her.
However, I would expect her to know that people will be able to read a tweet without that context - thus taking it out of context - and reacting accordingly.
I literally cannot read the tweet as bigoted or racist
^And that's okay. I see it differently. We all take different understandings of things. The tweeter should have considered this when posting the tweet.
I find it hard to accept this. I've offended people, unintentionally. Heck, there are still a few times that to this day I don't understand why the person was offended (I mostly do understand when they explain themselves).
We are human; I don't think it is reasonable to parse everything 140 characters that ever leaves our mouths or fingers and correctly predict how any/every person in the world might possible interpret it.
I mean, do you know anyone, ever, that has never offended somebody? It seems like an impossible standard. People shouldn't brake to late and rear end somebody at a stop light. People shouldn't ski too fast on a ski slope and fall. They shouldn't trip and fall. They shouldn't talk over somebody during a conversation. But we do them, now and again.
I loathe posting in conversations like this because it is almost inevitable that someone somewhere will misconstrue what I am saying. "Look, Roger is sticking up for racist posting!" Uh, no, anything but, but someone somewhere is going to say that. I'll probably get lucky and that won't develop into a Twitterstorm, but who knows? A good part of me says just delete this and don't hit reply.
But I don't want to live in that kind of world of perfect expectations. I'm going to try hard to express myself well, but you (you=public, not you the poster I'm replying to) have to understand that modelling the minds of others is a difficult and mistake ridden field.
That's why I'm happy to see post-mob coverage of stories like this one, and some of the Reddit mob-justice-gone-wrong situations.
2) I got the impression that this was a personal account, meaning I'd judge it based on what stupid shit I hear people say in bars or other social/personal situations. I know plenty of people who have said way worse things, and continue to.
At some point in life we all realize that we're not as funny as Steven Colbert, we're not as good looking as Brad Pitt, etc, etc. When you come to that realization, learn your limits and don't try to pull off a racist joke or wear a speedo to the beach. It's unfortunate that she had to learn this lesson in such a painful and public way. She was clearly in the wrong, but I don't agree that mob justice fits the crime.
I've done plenty of really f*cking stupid things in my time. I'm very thankful most of them were offline or pre-internet.
To repeat: she did not deserve ANY bullying or harassment whatsoever.
Did you experience consequences of the stupid actions you've taken?
The first time I knew society changed was when Charlie Sheen was fired for his lifestyle. Actually, the first time was the Clinton/Monica fiasco.
The only benefit I see from this hyper morality is true hypocrites/authority figures are exposed. I partied in the eighties, like everyone else; The only time I was offered hard drugs was by three off duty cops at different engagements. I don't think I(a stranger) would get that offer today?
I don't like it when one of you guys are fired over something said, but I'm all for exposing hypocritical Politicians and Law Enforcement types. Yes, I have been harassed by law enforcement, and if it happens again, and all this tech works, I will post the offence online. Legally--I know they can randomly stop people, I can randomly post. I now have two cameras front and rear of my vechicle. I am waiting for the next time I get pulled over for no reason. I also try to keep that Iphone camera handy if I suspect abuse of authority.
I liked the old system because I was white and middle class, but I can't imagine what a lot of women and minorites had to put up with?
(Actually the I more think about it, maybe the reason we are so sensitive over online comments is because, as white males, we didn't experience the injustice the rest had to endure? I know my generation wasen't sexist, or racist, but my father's generation--is a whole other story.)
^Thats quite an assumption to make, no?
For the record, I've never done any of the above.
The power that a few sentences can have is sometimes terrifying.
That wasn't clear. You said the "outcome was fair" - the outcome was that her life was ruined.
I meant the outcome from a professional standpoint was fair. I don't believe how her life has been "ruined" as I've explained elsewhere.
The consequences of the bullying, given her being fired, is much worse than if she was not fired. Her ability to compete in the workplace has been severely diminished because of this. Her PTSD that she will probably suffer for a long time has been greatly exacerbated by her firing.
Given the worst intention of her tweet (ignorance), getting fired was still not the right reaction to her "crime."
Do people need to be held accountable to their actions? I agree that they should. Outside of criminal law (since this wasn't criminal), the mob is not the right group to decide what the correct consequence of her actions should be. History shows that this leads to barbarism, which this was a case of.
She didn't get what was coming to her, she got much worse.
And yet if she was a writer for SouthPark or Family Guy, we'd all be laughing at the joke.
I mean presumably you don't think it was a repugnant thing to have posted, but then neither did Justine Sacco.
If you feel like Gawker would be interested in running a piece on my comment then feel free to go ahead and submit it.
Put it this way - nobody is against the idea of "people being held responsible for their actions". But it's pretty hard to buy that that's what happened here. I remember when the Sacco thing was trending and I never saw anyone who seemed hurt or angry, or even offended. To the contrary, people were thrilled that some PR asshole was going to get fired but didn't know it yet.
Didn't G.W. Bush say something similar about people who criticized the Iraq war?
Hahahahahahaha no. Eich paid money to political campaigns to ensure that some of his own employees and fellow citizens would not have basic human rights. Then, he refused to apologize for it and dodged the question when asked if he would do it again. That's not "expressing an opinion," that's nearly sociopathic. He was clearly working against his employees' best interest. Even ignoring his employees' feelings, he was bad for the company. Many productive employees threatened to quit because they didn't want to be represented by a person who explicitly expressed hatred towards them or their friends.
That kind of person does not belong in a position of power, full stop. Expressing homophobia in 2015 is going to close doors, the same way expressing racism or sexism does and should. There was no "bullying campaign" except the one supported and perpetrated by Eich.
Forcing someone to apologize for something that is not universally considered to be wrong is a good example of bullying. As is calling publicly his behaviour "sociopathic".
> He was clearly working against his employees' best interest.
This is hardly considered to be a firing offense for a CEO -- in fact, in many cases this is considered to be good by many people, e.g. by anti-tradeunionists when CEOs fights with unions.
> Many productive employees threatened to quit because they didn't want to be represented by a person who explicitly expressed hatred towards them or their friends.
Saying that he explicitly expressed hatred towards anyone is misrepresenting the facts, and is another example of bullying.
"Everyone who questions my obviously compassionate and righteous cause is a dangerous sociopath" — Many sociopaths
To elaborate, you're implying there's a different, valid side to this argument. I'm curious to hear it.
This isn't a disagreement over optimal taxation rates. There are people committing suicide because they've been demonized by people like those Eich paid money to support. There is real harm being done.
The only reason anyone knows about his ciews is because political donations are public, not because of anything he did at work.
But this was the CEO of a company unapologetically supporting a hate group aimed at many of his own employees. Then people have the balls to claim he was "bullied" out of his position as head of a major Internet company?
This isn't crazy programmer Ed going on about some conspiracy theory, this is the CEO of your company supporting hate directed at you and your friends. You can just wave Ed away. This guy is going after your fundamental rights. Screw that.
There likely wouldn't have been a Mozilla corp or org if he hadn't founded the company and as Mozilla grew he did nothing to hamper its growth into a highly diversity-friendly company. Privately he had issues, likely religious, about the definition of marriage and this was, culturally, a mainstream view at the time.
Sure, but arguably they're benefiting the company then. In what way does denying some people fundamental rights that other people are allowed to have benefit Mozilla? It's a different situation.
> Saying that he explicitly expressed hatred towards anyone is misrepresenting the facts
It really isn't. Did you see the Prop 8 campaign? Do you know the kind of offensive garbage anti-gay groups spew, even today? They regularly call homosexuals pedophiles, rapists, accuse them of having an "agenda" to convert others to homosexuality, or that their god hates them. These groups are a wellspring of hate, and Prop 8 was no lily-white exception. The "National Organization for Marriage," a major supporter of Prop 8, has been classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.
That's what Eich was paying to support. If giving material support to a cause forwarded by hate groups doesn't classify as expressing hatred, I really don't know what does.
I understand that this won't change anyone who's already formed an opinion on abortion but lying about your opposition shows a weakness in your position.
To some people, Planned Parenthood aborts fetuses. To other people, Planned Parenthood murders babies. I personally am much more in the former camp than the latter. But would you want the people who believe the latter to get you fired from your job because they read your Hacker News comment and plaster it all over conservative newspapers that "wavefunction is an apologist for baby murderers!"? I certainly wouldn't.
The nuance that always gets lost in these discussions is that different people have different points of view, and the same words may mean different things to them. Combine that with the lynch mob mentality and you have a powder keg.
Would you be opposed to pregnant women taking this drug?
There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage.
So, what makes an argument legitimate? In order for one to suggest that there is no legitimate argument against gay marriage, you'd have to rationalize what it is that we in the west know better than those living in less-wealthy, less-industrialized societies outside our corner of the globe.
Using that as a rulestick, no one will be negatively impacted by homosexuals getting married. Studies have been done, plenty of places around the globe have tried it with no negative consequences. The courts agree. There's no government interest in preventing gay marriage.
Most of those other societies incorporate substantial religious influence in their legislative and/or judicial processes. It doesn't require "rationalization" to demonstrate that this is harmful to human progress.
EDIT: Apparently that's a little contentious -- only 47% self-declared atheist (http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-pres...), but given that 9% of those surveyed did not respond to the question, the majority of respondents to this specific survey question did self-proclaim themselves as atheists.
Even today -- decades after the state/social pressures against religious affiliation disappeared -- most former soviet states still have very large atheist populations.
Yes, I think people, in a position where PR is a part of their role such as CEO, that work toward things that cause substantial outcry that prevent him from doing his job, should probably not be in that position.
Or are you saying that you'd think someone working against the ideals of Planned Parenthood in their own time would be suited to lead it?
You might disagree with the reasons, but the reality is, he couldn't do his job because of the outcry. So, the fundamental question becomes: Do you think someone should get fired for not being able to do their job?
That position of power, and Mozilla as a whole, would likely never have existed without Eich.
You seem sharp set to demonize Eich and otherwise be combative with others in all these comments. Have you ever considered that your attitude would harden peoples' hearts against you rather than warming them?
Do you think you will you ever be able to drop this victim act and heal and move on with life?
If that's your understanding of people who vote against gay marriage, then you really have no idea what's going on in this country.
Maybe you think that sucks. Well, in fairly short order, gay marriage is being legalized over their objections. That's a good thing. But to believe that it's being fueled by sociopathic animosity—to turn millions of Americans into movie villains because they haven't yet learned what you already have—is an act of arrogant blindness. And it's a harm to you as well—by not understanding why they believe what they do, by turning them into fictional caricatures, you lose all hope of changing their mind, and helping them learn what you learned.
I have no doubt that, over time, quite a lot of them will see the errors of their ways, and support gay marriage. But it will be despite you, not thanks to you.
But that isn't to say that religion has (or should have) no influence, because it influences the believers, who then support laws & lawmakers. Nor is always it possible to separate the beliefs that someone holds for religious reasons, vs. beliefs they hold for other reasons. But it does mean that a law needs more than religious reasons to stay on the books. Thankfully, gay marriage seems to be one that is mostly held for religious reasons, so laws preventing it can be dismantled (versus, say, marijuana prohibition. It's more than just religion, so it's harder to dismantle).
But if all you take away is that people against gay marriage aren't driven by sociopathic malice, then that's still an improvement.
The downvotes from cowards and/or homophobes do crack me up though. This is a discussion forum, folks. If you disagree, let's discuss it!
It's essentially online bullying by people that want to silence you for having an opinion that is different than their own.
The ex-Mozilla CEO knows this well. An online bullying campaign was launched against him and he was forced to quit.
I see this especially in many of the open source and tech communities, which is why I no longer contribute.
I also don't post anything political on my Facebook account. A future employer may look at this and judge me before I'm even hired..and decide not to hire me. Just looking at my list of friends, most people don't seem to realize that this may be a problem.
The same power that gives special interest groups and individuals the ability to launch campaigns to get people fired gives companies the power to not hire you based on your lifestyle or personal beliefs.