Gay Brownshirts Lisp Threateningly at Mozilla

[BLADE]

Welcome to Comrade Obama's America, where the Gaystapo will remove you from your job for being a ****ing tool.

In seriousness, I don't really mind conservative butthurt over this; conservatives are whiny babies in general. What I do mind are centrists/fake liberals QQing over this. Does anyone think Mozilla, etc. was in the wrong pressuring Eich to step down? I don't. Gay rights are human rights. Those who deny this deserve to be ridiculed, ruined, and possibly made to wear tacky clothes --because Fabio will not bedazzle them any longer.

 

[Saul Perth]

I'm Pro-Gay rights, but I think this was a little unwarranted, at least from my limited knowledge. He got forced out of a very good job simply because of his opinion, that seems like the exact opposite of the message the gay community would want to send.

 

[Aaron Corinth]

I was going to say the same thing. It seems kind of overkill to be ousted or willing leave a good job like that because of one's opinion. One person doesn't reflect the entire company's opinion. And this making national news is ignorance. There are much better things they could be reporting.

Edit: Not that I support the guy's placement into that position anyway. There were certainly better candidates.

 

[BLADE]

He's CEO. He represents the company brand. Sucks to be him.

For what it's worth, you're free to believe what you want, but you should also be ready to deal with whatever backlash. I don't expect Chick Fil-a to hire a secular humanist vegetarian. The same principle applies here.

 

[Viggy]

Mozilla wasn't in the wrong. Mozilla has to do what their users want to make money, and their users didn't want that guy at all.

That being said, in my ideal world, that guy could believe whatever crazy bullshit he wanted and it wouldn't affect his ability to do his job. I want that same right for myself after all, just in case.

 

[BLADE]

For all Mozilla's fuzzy open source bullshit, this decision was essentially driven by the profit motive. Which is fine. I believe in broad workplace protections for beliefs --even shitty ones-- but there's no doubt that this douchebag's anti-gay animus compromised his ability to do his job. Which is a shame! Dude invented javascript and not afraid of anything --except two dudes getting a KitchenAid mixer on their wedding registry.

Oh and seriously, gay people have suffered due to intolerance therefore they must tolerate intolerance? Do some of you actually sound out arguments in your head before you post them? Look, I say dumb shit all the time. I'm married, so it comes with the territory. But online? You have like an edit function, and the ability to stop before you post. Unless you're like being held hostage by Serbian strongmen who have some sort of sexual fetish for hastily made posts. Here's what I suggest. Stop and take a minute. Reread your argument. It may be earnestly made, but if it's dumb as shit, it's earnestly dumb. There's probably as Oscar Wilde comedy-of-manners about that, in fact.

 

[Viggy]

Oh and seriously, gay people have suffered due to intolerance therefore they must tolerate intolerance? Do some of you actually sound out arguments in your head before you post them? Look, I say dumb shit all the time. I'm married, so it comes with the territory. But online? You have like an edit function, and the ability to stop before you post. Unless you're like being held hostage by Serbian strongmen who have some sort of sexual fetish for hastily made posts. Here's what I suggest. Stop and take a minute. Reread your argument. It may be earnestly made, but if it's dumb as shit, it's earnestly dumb. There's probably as Oscar Wilde comedy-of-manners about that, in fact.

Almost five lines of pure vitriol just to say 'what you said is wrong'...

Prospero, I love you but you gotta calm down

 

[BLADE]

ALL WE WANT IS LIFE BEYOND THUNDERDOME.

Tonal arguments are bullshit. But seeing as you've made the most cogent post, Viggy, I'll move on from the sheer inanity of gay people need to martyr themselves on the cross of straight people's prejudices and move on to what sort of protections you think would be reasonable in this case.

And here's what I'll say. I think Mr. Eich deserves some sort of severance package, and cooperation from Mozilla in helping him find another job. He's highly qualified and I'm sure he'll find gainful employment, though this will certainly be a cloud which will linger over him, given Silicon Valley's culture.

On a tangent about that culture note, I have friends who work in the Valley, and you know what the wider issue was, aside from Eich's issues with TEH HOMOZ? He stonewalled and refused to engage. I don't think he should have necessarily recanted, but if you read his writings on this, they were essentially mealymouthed "if I offended anyone..." posts. Basically tone-deaf as to the leadership culture there.

But back on topic. I think he should certainly be helped to find another job at least insofar as being given the most level-playing field possible.

What sort of workplace protections are you talking about?

For me, it's a question of power and visibility; CEOs don't need and shouldn't get broad civil actor protections when regarding issues directly pertinent to the business model and viability of the brand they are representing. A secretary or a janitor though? Definitely should get maximal protections.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Never make public statements.

Do not talk to fellow employees.

Do not talk to customers unless prompted to. Never express opinions, even if asked.

Do not associate with co-workers online.

Do not attend company events, unless they are mandatory, in which case follow above instructions.

Do not social media. Not even once.

Never use your real name or reveal your identity in any capacity, not even in emergency situations, when online. Leave no clues nor trails to follow.

These are the rules to survive in the modern workplace. Keep your head down at your station, and do your job. Sneak in your multimedia device and use it to listen to music or surf the web, company devices could be being remotely monitored. Follow these, and you should do a-okay in your job without causing any waves.

 

[Viggy]

For me, it's a question of power and visibility; CEOs don't need and shouldn't get broad civil actor protections when regarding issues directly pertinent to the business model and viability of the brand they are representing. A secretary or a janitor though? Definitely should get maximal protections.

This is also exactly what I believe, I was just saying in my ideal world, we would be able to extend that protection to everyone.

The reality is it's just not possible for CEOs for all the reasons you pointed out, too bad so sad

 

[BLADE]

Even in an ideal world it'd be impossible, precisely because we'd get boycotts and all the stuff that the libertarians so butthurt over this claim to love. But yeah I get what you mean. I do think as regards Bronitarian's point, gay rights falls under a subset of stuff we can't talk about in the workplace --well not all of us, the law firm I work at is pretty political, so whatever.

It should be noted that that's a separate --and useful-- point to make about the deadening nature of capitalism ne plus ultra, one which I as a Social Democrat/Socialist/Generally on the Murky side of the Left Pool sympathize with. But I think people making legitimate --and useful-- points about how stifling work culture has gotten in the United States are also inadvertently abetting morons who hyperventilate about the gay agenda and how the homos are on top now --sexually too!-- when they make arguments too carelessly.

The truth is that the social component of this is easily explicable and predictable. As old people die, and society shifts, gay rights are becoming as sacrosanct as de jure equality between the races. Think about it. At your workplace statistically there's probably some asshole who believes black people shouldn't marry white people. But they'll seldom if ever mention that out loud because if it won't get them fired (hostile workplace environment) it'll alienate them from people they need to work alongside.

Discretion being the better part of valor? Self-censorship? Sure. But is it terrible? Are there tortured anti-homosexual souls out there who keep their ballads of AIDS being God's punishment under wraps because of the wider zeitgeist? Could one write a Southern Gothic novel about them?

Maybe, I guess. But I can't bring myself to be sad for people who enjoyed cultural hegemony for so long --and used it to trample gay people inter alia into the dust-- and are now themselves sad because they might be at the receiving end of cultural agglomeration. And ****, in their case oppression means people not liking them very much, and not say --being beaten by cops or denied medical care for an epidemic ravaging your community.

 

[Viggy]

My office is disgusting, racism and homophobia are pretty much part for parcel.

idgaf though keep your head down is right

 

[Lavi]

He was the face of Mozilla. He did something that was deemed unpopular by Mozilla's customers. He lost his position. Although the fact that the platform is on human rights probably factored in too, this guy probably would've lost his position if he did something completely different that netted the same level of backlash. Not at all surprised.

 

[BLADE]

I suppose you could always sue over a hostile workplace. Canada generally has relatively robust laws on the books. The cost and benefit though would make it prohibitive, so I understand. At least it's just a job, right? Or is it a more long-term career thing?

Since we're going on that tangent, I've worked at places where people were dicks. So yeah. Sometimes you have to tough it out. In my experience though, thoroughly shitty places and not just incidentally shitty places tend to be the exception to the rule.

 

[Cale]

Even in an ideal world it'd be impossible, precisely because we'd get boycotts and all the stuff that the libertarians so butthurt over this claim to love. But yeah I get what you mean. I do think as regards Bronitarian's point, gay rights falls under a subset of stuff we can't talk about in the workplace --well not all of us, the law firm I work at is pretty political, so whatever.

It should be noted that that's a separate --and useful-- point to make about the deadening nature of capitalism ne plus ultra, one which I as a Social Democrat/Socialist/Generally on the Murky side of the Left Pool sympathize with. But I think people making legitimate --and useful-- points about how stifling work culture has gotten in the United States are also inadvertently abetting morons who hyperventilate about the gay agenda and how the homos are on top now --sexually too!-- when they make arguments too carelessly.

The truth is that the social component of this is easily explicable and predictable. As old people die, and society shifts, gay rights are becoming as sacrosanct as de jure equality between the races. Think about it. At your workplace statistically there's probably some asshole who believes black people shouldn't marry white people. But they'll seldom if ever mention that out loud because if it won't get them fired (hostile workplace environment) it'll alienate them from people they need to work alongside.

Discretion being the better part of valor? Self-censorship? Sure. But is it terrible? Are there tortured anti-homosexual souls out there who keep their ballads of AIDS being God's punishment under wraps because of the wider zeitgeist? Could one write a Southern Gothic novel about them?

Maybe, I guess. But I can't bring myself to be sad for people who enjoyed cultural hegemony for so long --and used it to trample gay people inter alia into the dust-- and are now themselves sad because they might be at the receiving end of cultural agglomeration. And ****, in their case oppression means people not liking them very much, and not say --being beaten by cops or denied medical care for an epidemic ravaging your community.

This may be my favourite post on the entire site.

It also amuses/bemuses/saddens me when people bring up the Holocaust as an example of something that is actual persecution, and not something "teh gayz" have had to face. Which is why I shouldn't read the comments on those articles, because the sheer stupidity inherent to those threads is painful.

 

[BLADE]

There are idiots who bring up Pink Triangles as a harbinger of FABULOUS!Fascism without familiarizing themselves with the history of said symbol. The truth is that it's projection; because the most emotional backlash to this is people who find themselves in the transitional state from oppressor to being oppressed (again in this case not getting quiet acquiescence or tacit agreement with their stupid opinions; if not getting policy made to punish the Homos/Sluts/Kikes/*******/Spics/Liberals/Professors/Teachers/What-have you.)

It's not necessarily an exclusively Right-Wing phenomenon, as the Left certainly has its cultural modalities and historical enemies. But in terms of the historical moment right now? We're coming out of a long-period of total Right-Wing dominance over culture and politics --the latter of which largely persists in the economic realm-- and it's shorting out a certain type of authoritarian personality that things are shifting. Change is scary. Change makes people fearful.

These people are essentially crypto-fascists. If they had some sort of mass-movement promising to punish the Gays/JOOS/Sluts/etc. and put them back in their place, they'd join it in a heartbeat. But everyone wants to be righteous, right? So they pretend that they're about to be oppressed by their old kulturkampft enemies to assuage that little twinge of conscience they have.

The good news is that these people are largely shut-ins, weirdos, space-cases, and hermits. Loud. But harmless.

Note that I'm referring specifically to chronic Right-Wing trolls, who are literally The Worst People in the World (Hitler painted and liked dogs, okay?) and not everyone who opposes marriage equality.

Those people are just assholes.

 

[Viggy]

I suppose you could always sue over a hostile workplace. Canada generally has relatively robust laws on the books. The cost and benefit though would make it prohibitive, so I understand. At least it's just a job, right? Or is it a more long-term career thing?

Since we're going on that tangent, I've worked at places where people were dicks. So yeah. Sometimes you have to tough it out. In my experience though, thoroughly shitty places and not just incidentally shitty places tend to be the exception to the rule.

Suing would definitely not be worth it, it's a telemarketing job, I'm just there to save up some money til I go to school.

besides the people aren't all bad, just really ignorant. shut in to their office too much.

 

[BLADE]

To be fair, you wouldn't be punishing the people so much as the company. And ignorance in the defense of evil is no virtue.

But you're right, for what it's worth. Square your shoulders, keep your head down and get the **** out of there as soon as you can, bro.

 

[Neo Shark]

I don't think OkCupid (opinion) would have raised a stink if the CEO had just expressed his opinion. That wasn't what he's done though, he's actively opposed the equal rights for gays by contributing funds to oppose the legalization of gay marriage. It's one thing to say, "I'm not a fan of the gays," but's it's an entirely different matter when you fund acts of discrimination.