I wonder what really happen. But that's pretty sad.
The guy was forced to resign because he peacefully oppose gay marriage? Edit: shut up culture
He wasn't forced to resign, and he didn't peacefully oppose. The company, who's main product relies on a userbase to be able to use search engines which they are paid a (very, very small) amount to point towards Google by default. People were outaged at him and threatened to stop using the product. Now they weren't outraged because he opposed gay marriage, but because he actively donated to a proposition to limit the rights of people. That was a political act, not a political belief, that relied on discrimination. Having a person like that as a head of a public company is not good, especially because it calls into question if he can reasonably separate his work from his personal biases. Would he not hire someone for being gay? Do we know if he have other discriminatory views? How can you know? And as a company, if you are paying a man, and he is using his own money to vote against gay marriage, you're indirectly doing the same as the company. Your name is attached to him. Now on top of all this, he well and truly proved he had no right leading this company. He could have very easily lied and put this all to rest. He could have apologized for donated to the cause, said 2008 was a very long time ago, and made a simple sign of good will; but instead, he showed that his political acts and bigoted beliefs were far more important to him than leading the company. It simply didn't mean that much to him clearly. So he can fuck right off and go talk about the dangers of gays all he likes now, if he so pleases.
I don't think this connection is being made clear enough: that he was willing to lose business for his company for his beliefs. We can all have our opinions. Nevertheless, a CEO does not get to hide from being the public face of a company. That's most of the point of the job: you trade ever being off the clock for large sums of money. There is a reason most people burn out from being a CEO after a year or two. A regular manager or even a director has more accountability than the people below, but even they get time away from the pager. The CEO's job is being a 24-7 pager. Speaking of which, does anyone have that list of businesses the Koch head brothers run?
Obviously this is true. But it still shows that his discrimination was more important to him than running Mozilla, and that shows that he truly wasn't right for the job, as many people are crying out that he would be great and this is minor. Clearly it is not. Lying would not make him better as a CEO, we just wouldn't have known he is as awful as he is.
Not sad at all. Eich was not qualified to be Mozilla's CEO. They are not a for-profit company existing to make money for shareholders. They are a non-profit organization existing to fulfill an innately social and ethical mission. Eich gave both his voice and tangible resources in the form of money to deny equal treatment under law to gay Americans. People within Mozilla and without rightly, in turn, voiced their opinion that he was not fit to hold the role of CEO for that reason. They were right. Intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerance. Slowly but surely over the centuries our society is getting closer to giving equal treatment under law to all citizens...minorities, women, LBGT. We have a long way to go yet, but it isn't a sad day when a bigot doesn't get the high-profile job he wanted because because of his bigotry, not matter how civilly he wraps his words or frames his actions. It is right and good that people called him on this and the organization which exists for an ethical purpose recognized how unethical his actions were and his own refusal to justify them, and showed him the door. This has nothing to do with his 1st amendment rights or government censorship. He publicly held a stance and took certain actions that were deemed blatantly immoral by a large portion of the public and got called on.But that's pretty sad. The guy was forced to resign because he peacefully oppose gay marriage?
I disagree. Intolerance of intolerance is in fact intolerance (by definition, actually). However, the intolerance is justified. Let me use an example. Westboro Baptist Church pickets the funeral of a deceased soldier. This is intolerance. Do we let them march around and allow them to do whatever they want? No. We have the Patriot Guard Riders, a group of bikers who do not tolerate WBC. The bikers block WBC from entering the funeral grounds. This is intolerance of intolerance. However, the intolerance of the Patriot Guard Riders is justified. Intolerance isn't always a bad thing; I hope people stop acting like it is.Intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerance.
That is Westboro being intolerant. The bikers who oppose that are not intolerant, they are the opposite. They are tolerant. Taking issue with the intolerance of others does not make one intolerant. One of the number one defenses of bigots is that if you take issue with their bigotry then you're just as guilty as they are because you're being intolerant of their views. It's pure bullshit. It is an ideology of accepting others vs one of condemning others. To call people taking issue with intolerance and bigotry intolerant is just semantic nonsense that uses language to obfuscate.Let me use an example. Westboro Baptist Church pickets the funeral of a deceased soldier. This is intolerance. Do we let them march around and allow them to do whatever they want?
My point was that the bikers are intolerant of Westboro. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Very few tolerate Westboro. I agree. I stand by my claim.To call people taking issue with intolerance and bigotry intolerant is just semantic nonsense that uses language to obfuscate.
The intolerance of the Patriot Guard Riders is justified.
Intolerance isn't always a bad thing; I hope people stop acting like it is.
I think you two are using "intolerant" in different ways. There is a general state of intolerance, a mindset whereby one is given to a belief that others are wrong by virtue of birth, creed, or other state of being, which Westboro and others fit quite well, and then there is a specific act of intolerance, which is to actively stifle the views of another, acts that the bikers of the given example probably partake in. I think these are two separate definitions, and can't really be directly compared, as you don't agree in language but, it seems, you may agree in principle.
I humbly submit an Anatomy of Intolerance in three steps: 1. A person exists, having certain values and opinions. 2. The person observes something which offends their values and opinions. 3. The person responds to that thing, with quiet reservation, vocal dissent, active opposition, or in some other way. Step 2 seems to conform to the dictionary definition of intolerance, and seems unobjectionable to me. Step 3 is where Eich hit trouble, and I suspect that ecib is intolerant of activity only in that step. I first saw this story on The Dish and I thought Sullivan got it right. But then I saw ecib's comment and I thought he was right. Sullivan has since posted some updates and I'm again unsure. Why do most of us tolerate this once-widely-maligned group? Surely because culture has evolved. Perhaps this trend will continue until even today's most despised villains are tolerated, if not embraced, with understanding. This paragraph in The Atlantic was striking: The man's name wasn't publicised, but his story reminded me of Phineas Gage.Nobody can deny that we are sometimes biochemical puppets. In 2000, an otherwise normal Virginia man started to collect child pornography and make sexual advances toward his prepubescent stepdaughter. He was sentenced to spend time in a rehabilitation center, only to be expelled for making lewd advances toward staff members and patients. The next step was prison, but the night before he was to be incarcerated, severe headaches sent him to the hospital, where doctors discovered a large tumor on his brain. After they removed it, his sexual obsessions disappeared. Months later, his interest in child pornography returned, and a scan showed that the tumor had come back. Once again it was removed, and once again his obsessions disappeared.
Yes, pretty much. Even step 3 doesn't qualify as intolerance in most cases if it is "quiet reservation" IMO. Once you campaign, fight against, attempt to change minds and policy, etc, then I view that person as intolerant, and do not count openly calling out that intolerant behavior as intolerance itself. To do so is a semantic game and leads us away from the issue and debate. It's a rhetorical escape hatch for bigots. Regarding Eich, I do not believe one has any standing to complain about being ousted from leading an organization that exists for an ethical purpose when one is unethical, or at least seen as unethical by the community the org is there to serve. Absurd to praise an org for values and mission but argue that it's leader should be able to hold damaging values while in that role. I read the Sullivan piece and sound it spectacularly sensationalistic rhetorically. Basically a bunch of inflammatory language wrapped around the silly "taking issue with intolerance is intolerant" argument. There is an endless list of personal views, attributes, values, actions that would prevent an otherwise qualified person from being a CEO or other leadership role. People get knocked out of the running every single day across the globe. Activism to deny people equal legal rights happens to be on that list increasingly. This is good. Edit: I should clarify that I'm aware that Eich has actually vocally complained about any if this, but the same sentiment applies to his vocal defenders.