speaking of extremism, the Brendan Eich firing

is it OK for people to be fired for their political views?

  • yes

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • no

    Votes: 4 80.0%
  • only if I disagree with those views

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .

Oh my god. it's Robby!

spontaneously luminescent

for those that don't know, I didn't til watching the Colbert Report, he was the new CEO of Mozilla
and inventor one of the inventors of Javascript, but it seems the guy gave some $ to the 2008 campaign against gay marriage
to read more about the story I'll put some links:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/04/10/brendan-eich-refusenik-to-an-idea-cum-idol/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/08/brendan_eich_donated_to_prop_8_but_supports_workplace_equality_is_that_too.html
http://www.advocate.com/comedy/2014/04/10/watch-stephen-colbert-loss-mozillas-brendan-eich
all of which have more info about it, but also more bias then one gets from the comedy of the Daily Show or the Colbert Report :cool:
still, what do you think and remember to vote :thumb:


update: I am characterizing "being forced" to resign as the same as being fired, like most people would :straightface:
also, it has been reported that the only way he could keep his job was if he made a publicly disavowal of his donation
of course, anyone could find these details if they cared to read up on this issue :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
A

Anonymous

Guest
A. He wasn't fired. He resigned.
B. fuck you. He gave money to an organization to defeat human rights.
Z. When the head of an organization that has marketed itself as a progressive alternative since it's inception has to issue a statement to their employees that they don't need to worry about being treated as lesser-than just because the new CEO believes they are lesser-than, there is a problem. Thankfully he had the decency to resign. l
 

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber

for those that don't know, I didn't til watching the Colbert Report, he was the new CEO of Mozilla
and inventor one of the inventors of Javascript, but it seems the guy gave some $ to the 2008 campaign against gay marriage
to read more about the story I'll put some links:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/04/10/brendan-eich-refusenik-to-an-idea-cum-idol/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/08/brendan_eich_donated_to_prop_8_but_supports_workplace_equality_is_that_too.html
http://www.advocate.com/comedy/2014/04/10/watch-stephen-colbert-loss-mozillas-brendan-eich
all of which have more info about it, but also more bias then one gets from the comedy of the Daily Show or the Colbert Report :cool:
still, what do you think and remember to vote :thumb:
If it is a private company, then yes.

Imagine if the CEO of Manischewitz was found to be a member of a neo-Nazi party and had a basement full of Nazi memorabilia. Do you think he should be fired by the company that primarily caters to a Jewish population? Or should they have to retain the anti-Semite despite that fact that he obviously is not the poster boy for the values of the company?

Eich was the CEO of a very liberal, trailblazing company that considers itself a role model for equality and progressive values. His conservatism was not toeing the party, I mean company, line.
 
Last edited:

Oh my god. it's Robby!

spontaneously luminescent
If it is a private company, then yes.

Imagine if the CEO of Manischewitz was found to be a member of a neo-Nazi party and had a basement full of Nazi memorabilia. Do you think he should be fired by the company that primarily caters to a Jewish population? Or should they have to retain the anti-Semite despite that fact that he obviously is not the poster boy for the values of the company?

Eich was the CEO of a very liberal, trailblazing company that considers itself a role model for equality and progressive values. His conservatism was not towing the party, I mean company, line.
OK, so being against gay marriage and working for a company like Mozilla is tantamount to a Neo-Nazi running Manischewitz :confused:
I wonder how Christopher Hitchens would feel about that :p


next part not directed @ ReBi, but just a general comment:
for the record, I think gay people should be allowed to get married* just not get people fired over the issue, and you know what?
there are plenty of non-extremists of all orientations who agree with this out there in the world I bet


*=no one should be denied a right to the horrors of marriage :lbf:
 

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
OK, so being against gay marriage and working for a company like Mozilla is tantamount to a Neo-Nazi running Manischewitz :confused:
I wonder how Christopher Hitchens would feel about that :p


next part not directed @ ReBi, but just a general comment:
for the record, I think gay people should be allowed to get married* just not get people fired over the issue, and you know what?
there are plenty of non-extremists of all orientations who agree with this out there in the world I bet


*=no one should be denied a right to the horrors of marriage :lbf:
The CEO is the image of a company. He or she represents the company--its goals and values. Eich and Mozilla were mismatched. Hitchens would agree with me. He was a libertarian in many respects. It is a private company. It should be free to hire and fire its CEOs as it chooses. Being opposed to gay marriage may not be as extreme as being anti-Semitic. That was not the point. The point was that a company should decide who the face of the company is. Not the government.
 

Oh my god. it's Robby!

spontaneously luminescent
The CEO is the image of a company. He or she represents the company--its goals and values. Eich and Mozilla were mismatched. Hitchens would agree with me. He was a libertarian in many respects. It is a private company. It should be free to hire and fire its CEOs as it chooses. Being opposed to gay marriage may not be as extreme as being anti-Semitic. That was not the point. The point was that a company should decide who the face of the company is. Not the government.
well, what can I say? but after reading:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/04/10/brendan-eich-refusenik-to-an-idea-cum-idol/
this, I respectfully disagree with such a characterization of Hitchens views, but will never know because, sadly he is with G-, erm, I mean dead now
also, my own knee jerk reaction to companies firing people because of their politics is that this is where the governments must protect their citizens
if nowhere else :o
and it should go without saying that any powers which a company is sure to exercise like firing people because they are:
anti-gay, pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-Putin :sick: or this, that or the other :crazy:
well, those are ones sure to usurped by a government(especially ones that don't protect their citizens)


ps: I am thinking about deleting Firefox now, but that would be just fighting fire with fire, right?
 
Last edited:

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
I think we are arguing two different points Robby. You are making the case for tolerance. I am making the case for a company having the right to run its company the way it sees fit sans the PC police intervening. Hypothetically, it could have been a very conservative company who fired its CEO upon learning that person went on an annual sex tour to Thailand. The CEO did not present the values of that company. The company had the right to dismiss them.
 

Oh my god. it's Robby!

spontaneously luminescent
I think we are arguing two different points Robby. You are making the case for tolerance. I am making the case for a company having the right to run its company the way it sees fit sans the PC police intervening. Hypothetically, it could have been a very conservative company who fired its CEO upon learning that person went on an annual sex tour to Thailand. The CEO did not present the values of that company. The company had the right to dismiss them.
Point taken, sort of*, however, for me the fact that the company in question reacted so quickly and harshly to what basically amounts to a very vocal minority lobbying them through social media :sick: and by that I mean a minority of gay people, not the gay minority. :rolleyes:
Well, its just the kind of thing we could really use to get equal protection for everyone from being fired for their views. The way I see it, there are many more powerful people of the "moral majority" bent that could lobby to get others fired for not being like them then the other way around. :cool:


*=OK, so we went from comparing people who give $ to an anti-gay cause to Neo-Nazis to instead ones who go on sex tours of Thailand, not really much of a step down there ReBi, perhaps something more like people who don't think there is much wrong with people who go on such sex tours :lbf:
its a joke, hence the smilies :straightface:
 
Last edited:

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
I think we are arguing two different points Robby. You are making the case for tolerance. I am making the case for a company having the right to run its company the way it sees fit sans the PC police intervening. Hypothetically, it could have been a very conservative company who fired its CEO upon learning that person went on an annual sex tour to Thailand. The CEO did not present the values of that company. The company had the right to dismiss them.
Next you'll be saying every company has a right to chop down trees since you seem to have a rightwing bug up your butt to suit your new image do-over.

 

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
well, what can I say? but after reading:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/04/10/brendan-eich-refusenik-to-an-idea-cum-idol/
this, I respectfully disagree with such a characterization of Hitchens views, but will never know because, sadly he is with G-, erm, I mean dead now
also, my own knee jerk reaction to companies firing people because of their politics is that this is where the governments must protect their citizens
if nowhere else :o
and it should go without saying that any powers which a company is sure to exercise like firing people because they are:
anti-gay, pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-Putin :sick: or this, that or the other :crazy:
well, those are ones sure to usurped by a government(especially ones that don't protect their citizens)


ps: I am thinking about deleting Firefox now, but that would be just fighting fire with fire, right?
Hitchens would have disagreed with the totalitarian mindset (group-think) of Mozilla. But agree, as a libertarian, with its right to fire the CEO. Don't think I don't realize how fragile my employment status is anywhere I should happen to work, as an outspoken atheist. I'm safe at a government or university job. But at a privately owned company? Not a chance. There is no job security for most people in this country. Most can be fired tomorrow if the owner(s)/share holders happen to decide, for any cause, you are no longer a good fit. That is just the way it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Next you'll be saying every company has a right to chop down trees since you seem to have a rightwing bug up your butt to suit your new image do-over.

It must really bother you that you can't pigeon hole this free thinker. I don't tow any party line.
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
It must really bother you that you can't pigeon hole this free thinker. I don't tow any party line.
Lol. You're about as far from a free-thinker as anyone on this forum.
 

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
Point taken, sort of*, however, for me the fact that the company in question reacted so quickly and harshly to what basically amounts to a very vocal minority lobbying them through social media :sick: and by that I mean a minority of gay people, not the gay minority. :rolleyes:
Well, its just the kind of thing we could really use to get equal protection for everyone from being fired for their views. The way I see it, there are many more powerful people of the "moral majority" bent that could lobby to get others fired for not being like them then the other way around. :cool:
No way. Which views? All views should be protected? If I host a racist podcast on the weekend should my employer, who sells car stereo equipment to a predominantly black population, have to retain my employment because my views are protected by law? He is shit out of luck? Sorry, customers, but one of our salesmen is a bigot and we as a private company have no right to decide who works for us. Once they are hired, we are stuck. That is a nanny state. That is fascist. That is totalitarian. Hitch would not approve.
 

Oh my god. it's Robby!

spontaneously luminescent
extremist is as extremist does

No way. Which views? All views should be protected? If I host a racist podcast on the weekend should my employer, who sells car stereo equipment to a predominantly black population, have to retain my employment because my views are protected by law? He is shit out of luck? Sorry, customers, but one of our salesmen is a bigot and we as a private company have no right to decide who works for us. Once they are hired, we are stuck. That is a nanny state. That is fascist. That is totalitarian. Hitch would not approve.

almost there, and OK
its like this, we have laws, you know the first Amendment is one and well, even that has its limits, like you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater
but sure anybody can go to court and say their "speech" is protected, as a matter of fact, the Supreme court just said that super rich people :sick:
should not be limited in how much $ they can contribute to politicians because its a limit on their "free speech" :crazy:
and as mad as I might be with this, there could be some give the other way when it comes to us poor folk :o
in that being fired from our jobs for our views is to be protected, how far?
well, I am guessing that not to the point of your purely theoretical example* listed above** :straightface:
then again I place a premium value on common sense and real world example, I get that not everyone is like that :rolleyes:



*=running extreme analogy count:
up to 3 now, how I can it go? :lbf:
**=a fascinating coincidence? I have a cousin and an uncle who are both very successful car salesmen, one is gay, one is a racist(imho)
and I am pretty sure that none of that ever comes up in their jobs, because well, they are good at it, the market decides, and if people stopped buying things from them
for whatever reason, then I am sure that they would be let go, that would be the market deciding and their employer acting
to the same extent, who knows, as long they still sell a lot of cars, thats all that matters, not their views, sex, race, orientation, age, etc, etc...
 
Last edited:
A

Anonymous

Guest
[b[He was not fired.[/b]
You guys are so full of your opinions you ignore the facts.
 

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
Babysitter wanted in Nanny State. Advocate for pedophilia? No problem.


almost there, and OK
its like this, we have laws, you know the first Amendment is one and well, even that has its limits, like you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater
but sure anybody can go to court and say their "speech" is protected, as a matter of fact, the Supreme court just said that super rich people :sick:
should not be limited in how much $ they can contribute to politicians because its a limit on their "free speech" :crazy:
and as mad as I might be with this, there could be some give the other way when it comes to us poor folk :o
in that being fired from our jobs for our views is to be protected, how far?
well, I am guessing that not to the point of your purely theoretical example* listed above** :straightface:
then again I place a premium value on common sense and real world example, I get that not everyone is like that :rolleyes:



*=running extreme analogy count:
up to 3 now, how I can it go? :lbf:
**=a fascinating coincidence? I have a cousin and an uncle who are both very successful car salesman, one is gay, one is a racist(imho)
and I am pretty sure that none of that ever comes up in their jobs, because well, they are good at it, the market decides, and if people stopped buying things from them
for whatever reason, then I am sure that they would be let go, that would be the market deciding and their employer acting
to the same extent, who knows, as long they still sell a lot of cars, thats all that matters, not their views, sex, race, orientation, age, etc, etc...
So just the views you agree with should be protected? Who gets to decide what is extreme? The Supreme Court? They'll 'know it when they see it.' All views but extreme views will be protected? NANNY STATE.
 
Re: Babysitter wanted in Nanny State. Advocate for pedophilia? No problem.


almost there, and OK
its like this, we have laws, you know the first Amendment is one and well, even that has its limits, like you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater
but sure anybody can go to court and say their "speech" is protected, as a matter of fact, the Supreme court just said that super rich people :sick:
should not be limited in how much $ they can contribute to politicians because its a limit on their "free speech" :crazy:
and as mad as I might be with this, there could be some give the other way when it comes to us poor folk :o
in that being fired from our jobs for our views is to be protected, how far?
well, I am guessing that not to the point of your purely theoretical example* listed above** :straightface:
then again I place a premium value on common sense and real world example, I get that not everyone is like that :rolleyes:
Sadly, it's not so common anymore.
(love Dean and Sam, btw)



I have a cousin and an uncle who are both very successful car salesman, one is gay, one is a racist(imho)
and I am pretty sure that none of that ever comes up in their jobs, because well, they are good at it, the market decides, and if people stopped buying things from them
for whatever reason, then I am sure that they would be let go, that would be the market deciding and their employer acting
to the same extent, who knows, as long they still sell a lot of cars, thats all that matters, not their views, sex, race, orientation, age, etc, etc...
Exactly. As a business owner, I don't care about my employees' religious or political views, sex, race, orientation, age, etc....
It is all about performance.
 
Hitchens would have disagreed with the totalitarian mindset (group-think) of Mozilla. But agree, as a libertarian, with its right to fire the CEO. Don't think I don't realize how fragile my employment status is anywhere I should happen to work, as an outspoken atheist. I'm safe at a government or university job. But at a privately owned company? Not a chance. There is no job security for most people in this country. Most can be fired tomorrow if the owner(s)/share holders happen to decide, for any cause, you are no longer a good fit. That is just the way it is.

- - - Updated - - -



It must really bother you that you can't pigeon hole this free thinker. I don't tow any party line.
"Dying metaphors. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically "dead" (e.g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgel for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed. Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning (what is a "rift," for instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying. Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning without those who use them even being aware of the fact. For example, toe the line is sometimes written as tow the line. Another example is the hammer and the anvil, now always used with the implication that the anvil gets the worst of it. In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer, never the other way about: a writer who stopped to think what he was saying would avoid perverting the original phrase."

-George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language", 1946.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Hitchens likely would have agreed with THIS, being a long-time admirer of Orwell's, and having read every word the man ever wrote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Orwell_Matters
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/08/christopher-hitchens-george-orwell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY5Ste5xRAA

Who are you to unequivocally state what Hitchens would or would not have agreed with anyway, as if you're some kind of authority on the man? He was not so predictable that you could announce what he would have been in favour of or opposed to with any degree of certainty (but then again, I forgot that you have everything in the Universe figured out). As Hitchens' good friend Martin Amis once said; "I'm an agnostic, which is the only rational position. It's not because I feel a God or think that anything resembling the banal God of religion will turn up. But I think that atheism sounds like a proof of something, and it's incredibly evident that we are nowhere near intelligent enough to understand the universe" - however he never met you, who would have filled him in on all of the Universe's secrets. It's 'incredibly evident' that HE CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! Thank God (oops, I mean.. thank The Abyss) that we have you to enlighten us with all of your unsubstantiated 'facts', which us mere mortals could never be privy to on our own. Hail Jehne, who art in Arizona, hallowed be thy 'truth'! Amen(dacious woman)! You're a 'free thinker' indeed, about as much as anybody else who's locked into an unshakeable ideology. People don't need to 'pigeonhole' you as you've already done it to yourself.
 
Last edited:

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
"Dying metaphors. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically "dead" (e.g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgel for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed. Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning (what is a "rift," for instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying. Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning without those who use them even being aware of the fact. For example, toe the line is sometimes written as tow the line. Another example is the hammer and the anvil, now always used with the implication that the anvil gets the worst of it. In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer, never the other way about: a writer who stopped to think what he was saying would avoid perverting the original phrase."

Pardon me. Toe the party line. Proof I need to read more, write less.

-George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language", 1946.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Hitchens likely would have agreed with THIS, being a long-time admirer of Orwell's, and having read every word the man ever wrote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Orwell_Matters
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/08/christopher-hitchens-george-orwell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY5Ste5xRAA
Yes, I know he was a huge admirer of Orwell. Have you read Why Orwell Matters? I have.

Who are you to unequivocally state what Hitchens would or would not have agreed with, as if you're some kind of authority on the man? He was not so predictable that you could announce what he would have been in favor of or opposed to with any degree of certainty (but then again, I forgot that you have everything in the Universe figured out).
Robby stated Hitchens would disagree. I disagreed with him and attempted to make an argument. Neither of us know for certain what he would say about current events. We can only speculate based on what we know of his views and writings and statements made regarding similar issues. Educated guesses at best, yes.

As Hitchens' good friend Martin Amis once said; "I'm an agnostic, which is the only rational position. It's not because I feel a God or think that anything resembling the banal God of religion will turn up. But I think that atheism sounds like a proof of something, and it's incredibly evident that we are nowhere near intelligent enough to understand the universe" - however he never met you, who would have filled him in on all of the Universe's secrets. It's 'incredibly evident' that HE CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! Thank God (oops, I mean.. thank The Abyss) that we have you to enlighten us with all of your unsubstantiated 'facts', which us mere mortals could never be privy to on our own. Hail Jehne, who art in Arizona, hallowed be thy 'truth'! Amen(dacious woman)! You're a 'free thinker' indeed, about as much as anybody else who's locked into an unshakeable ideology. People don't need to 'pigeonhole' you as you've already done it to yourself.
Yes, I am familiar with Amis and his views. Hitchens also had Christian and Jewish Friends. What is your point? Unshakable ideology? What ideology is that? Spell it out.
 
Last edited:

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
Top Bottom