Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Leo, the only problem is that, well....

By the same mark that this guy is a shitty guy, most people are shitty. Most people hold views I find abhorrent. The vast bulk of the human population. I would be surprised if it was, in fact, everyone, and I just havent had the opportunity to yet discover the shittiness of those I think of as exceptions.

No one has said we shouldnt care about the shitty things he done. But if we held every shitty thing people have done against them and we arent allowed to have a complex opinion on them that says "well, they are still a good guy" overall, or even "they are good in some ways , bad in others, in what way does preventing them from acting in the way thats good help us in our war against that which is bad" or other such complex realistic views required to actually interact with other human beings.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

He doesn't need to be a CEO to work on it. He needs to be a programmer. Or, at most, a project lead overseeing several programmers.

But it's a bit too far gone for him to turn back now.

What do you mean? Is he too accustomed to the life of an executive, and now he's unable to actually produce anything?

Leo, the only problem is that, well....

By the same mark that this guy is a shitty guy, most people are shitty. Most people hold views I find abhorrent. The vast bulk of the human population. I would be surprised if it was, in fact, everyone, and I just havent had the opportunity to yet discover the shittiness of those I think of as exceptions.

No one has said we shouldnt care about the shitty things he done. But if we held every shitty thing people have done against them and we arent allowed to have a complex opinion on them that says "well, they are still a good guy" overall, or even "they are good in some ways , bad in others, in what way does preventing them from acting in the way thats good help us in our war against that which is bad" or other such complex realistic views required to actually interact with other human beings.

We try to get better. This guy put his money where his morals were and actively tried to retard social growth that was happening in a positive direction. Not only is he not trying to get better, he was trying to make things worse.

Secondly, he doesn't need to be a CEO. I'm sure there are many much more qualified executives out there. The good things he's done that you describe are things that he did in his role as a content creator, for which his morality is relatively unimportant because he has little influence on policy. If you say the public stopped him from being a CEO, that doesn't stop him from doing his good stuff. In fact, he should go somewhere and get back to coding.

Third, my point of view is nuanced and cogent. Saying it's oversimplified ignores that I do thinking that isn't typed out.

[Loud Whispers]

What do you mean? Is he too accustomed to the life of an executive, and now he's unable to actually produce anything?

No, the guy just had his career catastrophically explode over this.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

What do you mean? Is he too accustomed to the life of an executive, and now he's unable to actually produce anything?

No, the guy just had his career catastrophically explode over this.

He could still write good code and sell it. Again, if his career is being an executive, maybe he needs to change careers. If you embezzle you probably ain't gonna be an accountant anymore; if you pull a Robert H. Richards you probably won't be working as a preschool teacher.

If you make it clear to the world that you're a bigot, it's probably a good thing that you don't get to be a CEO. Then again, there are probably plenty of companies who would love to have him. Isn't there a company that sells duck whistles he can run?

[Jelle]

Now before I speak my mind let me avoid wrong impressions by saying I do not at all agree that gay marriage is bad, or similar intolerant ideas. I am not protecting this view point, and definately have no intention of being called names, wich this quote is certainly generous with.

The guy could of come out and said "I was wrong then. I have grown, and come to realise I put my money in something I have come to since view as a vile and repugnant belief, and I'm sorry." and odds would of been better all would of been fine. Most of the boycotters probably would of stopped boycotting and the board of directors hand wouldn't of been forced. Did he ever sincerely express regret and shame for his decision to donate to that cause?

The people who disagree with the mainstream get judged and punished. Social progress isn't when this stops, it's when the people who are spreading the hate become the ones being judged and punished, instead of the ones being hated.

It's social progress and exactly what you expect to happen in a more progressive society when the racists and homophobes of the world start being looked down on and personally suffering for their beliefs. It's not rainbows and everybody holding hands, it's the racists and homophobes being forced to shut up and act like they aren't so their memes can't spread effectively. They're free to still try and spread those memes, but they're also free to suffer the consequences of that.

This train of thought does not sit well with me. At all. Every single person has a right to think what they may think, to their opinion. As a democratic society every person has a right to weigh in their political views, indisciminately. These freedoms are perhaps the greatest achievement of modern society. Certainly you can disagree with this particular persons view, as do I, but you would demand he be forced to be of another mind? This comes very close to forced reconditioning, not at all different from a rather darker time in history, when men dictated what other men think. Social justice indeed...

[Loud Whispers]

He could still write good code and sell it.

Which no one would buy. People are bringing six year old stuff up on him, they won't forget. The guy's half a centenarian and not likely to be able to stand up against the internet hate machine, and honestly has no financial incentive to do anything against such resistance.

One step closer to turning the West into a great big pool of stagnancy.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

He could still write good code and sell it.

Which no one would buy. People are bringing six year old stuff up on him, they won't forget. The guy's half a centenarian and not likely to be able to stand up against the internet hate machine, and honestly has no financial incentive to do anything against such resistance.

One step closer to turning the West into a great big pool of stagnancy.

Except, do you know who coded all the shit you use? No, it was some company who hired programmers. He can still work in his field, he's just gonna have trouble getting work as a public figure.

[MorleyDev]

Except I'm not demanding anything. It's not a third party forcing ideas upon the masses, it's an inherent part of the system and the way a society regulates itself, it's the way we form norms and mores and it's how norms and mores change over time.

Ultimately men do dictate what men think. By raising them, by talking to them, by looking down at them for certain opinions and congratulating them for others. I'm just describing the way these things work together when change happens in the ideals of societies: A meme becomes unpopular amongst the masses, those who hold on to the meme are condemned as the meme gradually dies. To be uncomfortable with this is to be uncomfortable with a fundamental basis of human interaction.

Slavery, segregation, women being denied the right to vote, at first, people who opposed them were condemned. Eventually, the switch happened and slavery became looked down upon by the masses. Now, hardly anybody in the UK or USA will advocate women being banned from the vote as a good thing publicly. And those who do would be looked down upon by a society where a majority finds that view abhorrent. And yes, suffer for it in their personal lives and careers.

And of course there's a dark side too. The same process applies to changes for the good and the ill.

[Cheeetar]

Fire someone because he's gay - DISCRIMINATION!
Fire someone because he'd donated to an anti-gay organisation 6 years ago - business is business, this is how free market rolls, he wasn't good enough, we gotta care about our image.

Wat

I'm sure other people have told you how incredibly wrong this is already, but I'd just like to pick on this particular post. Being gay is not the same as being 'pro-gay', it is not the same as choosing to be gay, no matter what you personally believe. In the same way, a person who is born short is not 'pro-short', and they did not sever their legs to achieve the height they are now at.

If somebody donated to a political effort to bar every short person from being married, would you think that that was okay, and just their personal beliefs? Would you be comfortable working at the company of a person who believed short people were fundamentally different and did not deserve the rights that being married entitled them to? Would you be comfortable using their product? Do you think that company is doing the right thing by getting rid of a CEO who believes short people are so incredibly different that they shouldn't have these rights that 'normal' people have access to?

[Zangi]

To me, this is the same situation - I don't like this guy. I think he's a bad guy. But trying to get people fired for having a political opinion you see as wrong... that's horrendous looking, to me. It's just ghastly. Even if it can be justified, is that something we want a precedent for? Is it something who's precedent we want to reinforce? Can we make a coherent argument as to why it should apply in this case but not in all the other cases where people will surely want to do it?

It's the hatred in the unambiguous support for this I've seen that bothers me - it's not people arguing "it's worth it", it's people arguing "this is a good thing even if it has no good consequences. Punishing someone for disagreeing with me about a single thing, no matter what else he has done or who he is, is enough in and of itself to be a good thing". Is that something people can really read and not think is a horrible opinion to hold?

Germany pretty much does that already.  Heyo!

Yes, I agree with GlyphGryph on this.

[Loud Whispers]

Except men do dictate what men think. By raising them, by talking to them, by looking down at them for certain opinions and congratulating them for others. I'm just describing the way the change happens in the ideals of societies: A meme becomes unpopular amongst the masses, those who hold on to the meme are condemned as the meme gradually dies. To be uncomfortable with this is to be uncomfortable with a fundamental basis of human interaction. We force them subtly, and implicitly, because that's how humans interact. It's not a third party forcing this upon the masses, it's an inherent part of the system.

Replace meme with idea or belief and I'd agree.

those who do would be looked down upon by a society where a majority finds that view abhorrent. And yes, suffer for it in their personal lives and careers.

Then be prepared when society changes what they find to be abhorrent. Morals are always mutating, and a lack of diversity in opinions means there'll be no opposition to check if an argument is solid - if it is worth doing things like this that endanger freedom.

[Darvi]

That's literally what a meme is.

[MorleyDev]

Meme literally means idea or belief.

Then be prepared when society changes what they find to be abhorrent. Morals are always mutating, and a lack of diversity in opinions means there'll be no opposition to check if an argument is solid - if it is worth doing things like this that endanger freedom.

You seem to think this process leads to stasis, but in all of human history such a stasis of norms and mores has yet to be achieved.
 Societies have already changed what they found to be abhorrent. Many times. Remember when black people were segregated? When women couldn't vote? When homosexuals were put in prison?

This isn't any different a situation to people boycotting a product because the head of that company supported segregation. This isn't a new or unique situation, it's just another repeat of something that's happened many times before and will happen many times again.

[Loud Whispers]

But societies have already changed what they found to be abhorrent. Many times.

It won't always change the way you want it to go.

This isn't any different a situation to people boycotting a product because the head of that company was against women's rights. This isn't a new or unique situation, it's just another repeat of something that's happened many times before and will happen many times again.

This is getting a CEO and avid contributor to the internet end his career because he opposed gay marriage. This guy was actually useful. The whole thing was blown completely out of proportion; there wasn't even an attempt to start a debate or anything before everyone decided the immediate and proportional response was to fuck him up.

[MorleyDev]

And, perhaps, so was the slave owner. And so was Alan Turing. If history has shown us anything, it's that doing what a society sees as good doesn't absolve you of what they see as bad.

Look at it this way, would you be comfortable working with a person who supports and campaigns for racial segregation? What about working with somebody who *was* comfortable working with that person? What about buying bread from a person who supports and campaigns for racial segregation? At the end of the day, it poisons the chalice. Especially when you're in a high position like CEO. He poisoned Mozilla's chalice, and people were uncomfortable enough to boycott. A casualty from one point of view and a just consequence from another.

Bad memes can be introduced and grow in a society, history has proven that point, we just have to hope humanity has the collective intelligence to accept the good and shake off the bad. You have to be willing to fight for the causes you support, but an implicit part of that is if you lose that fight you suffer the consequences.