1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Eich steps down from Mozilla over equal rights furore

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 4 Apr 2014.

  1. Yadda

    Yadda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2003
    Posts:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    49
    What if the accountancy firm/airline/car manufacturer's sales pitch was "We care for everybody more than anyone else. We're fab, honest, now buy our stuff!"
     
  2. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Saying a company cares more than any other is like Google's do no evil campaign, care and evil are ambiguous terms and can be defined in many ways.
     
  3. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,256
    Likes Received:
    1,684
    Indeed. A commercial strapline ("To us, you're the most important customer in the world") and company values ("We treat everybody as equal") are two entirely different things. One is fluff, the other is an ethical stance.
     
    Last edited: 5 Apr 2014
  4. Yadda

    Yadda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2003
    Posts:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    49
    Well, at least we've arrived at some common ground.

    Your earlier wife-beater analogy gave the impression that you wanted anyone with views you weren't comfortable with consigned to the Gulag. :)
     
  5. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,199
    Likes Received:
    155
    It's not about the values of the company. It's not even about his views or actions. Companies aren't people. Companies don't have morals or ethics. This is about business.

    If his views or actions are bad for businesses then he's gone. The views or actions in themselves are irrelevant (From the perspective of the business)
     
  6. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,256
    Likes Received:
    1,684
    It was an extreme example, but designed to make us (at the time) think about whether a person's personal life behaviour should be congruent with their professional life behaviour.

    A fundamental concept in psychotherapy is transference (the ideas and feelings that a client subconsciously projects onto you) and counter-transference (the ideas and feelings that you subconsciously project onto the client --partly in response to their transference, but also partly because you have a psychological worldview, beliefs, learning experiences, baggage etc. of your own). If you have ideas, beliefs and values that are incongruent with those of your job, they will leak out and make a mess of things. I think that is pretty much the same for any job.

    Now in some jobs it doesn't matter so much, because these beliefs and values may simply never collide. In others they are very likely to collide, and that is bad for business (companies don't have morals or ethics, but professions, services and their actions certainly do).
     
  7. Yadda

    Yadda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2003
    Posts:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    49
    Incongruent transference? *sharp intake of breath* Nasty stuff, that. :D
     
  8. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,256
    Likes Received:
    1,684
    No, no! Transference of incongruence. Totally different thing, like. :p
     
  9. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,199
    Likes Received:
    155
    Interesting because my view on the point of the question was:

    Since you can do nothing for the wife. Do you put your own feelings of disgust on hold so the man can help people by doing his job. Or do you satisfy your own morality and appease your discomfort by not giving him the job but in turn preventing those who need help from accessing it.

    A question of who's feelings you put first. Yours or the potential patients of this man.
     
  10. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,256
    Likes Received:
    1,684
    It's a question of congruence again: can someone be abusive to their partner in their personal life and behave like a pleasant and caring professional in their work life? Only if they are a sociopath. That actually makes them quite dangerous and unsafe. There have been a few in the NHS; they usually end up in the news sooner or later. Dr. Harold Shipman to name an obvious one.

    Moreover (as I tell trainees) the first rule of therapy is: It is never about you. The second rule of therapy is: It is always about you. You will inevitably bring your own personality, ideas, beliefs, concepts, feelings, psychological baggage etc. into the therapeutic relationship. Clients will always sense it, whether consciously or subconsciously. Someone who has such fundamental disdain and disregard for one person that they will abuse them, will be unable to genuinely respect and care about someone else.
     
  11. law99

    law99 Custom User Title

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    2,382
    Likes Received:
    59
    Yes. I would still hire them. It's an interesting question, yes. I had a similar question in a job interview. The answer I gave was I would still hire them, because I didn't know. I cannot be held accountable for their actions nor the judgement I made of the man or woman with the evidence I had in front of me. If it ever comes out about what they are doing then the paradigm changes.

    The police man question is different again. That isn't a specific enough reason to discount and dismiss anyone from a position.

    But as pointed out, beating your wife is not the same as supporting a group that wanted to ban gay marriage. You can make what ever leap you would like to marry them into an argument, but they will remain separate issues.

    Now, on to the point. I understand that you represent the company and their ideals when you become CEO. However, "openness and inclusiveness" in this instance was used to deny someone else, because a group didn't like an opinion they harboured and once acted upon but refused to apologise for and jettison after public pressure.

    If this as an issue at the level he was appointed, it should have been an issue before of significant enough magnitude to have prevented the appointment. You can say the community has spoken, but the community as ever don't have all the facts. None of us know this man and we all see ourselves fit enough to judge and publicly lambast, for views that he in no way seems to be echoing now. This is under the pretence that we know he'll adversely motivate the will of Mozilla - despite Mozilla being the sum of all its parts and not one man; through Openness and Inclusiveness.

    By making a donation to a political movement that would have quashed the rights of same sex couples to marry, you are not abusing them. Is Brendan Eich now crusading for those rights to be quashed? No he isn't. If he was, I would go as far as to say he is an oppressive figure in the struggle for equality within the scope of sexual orientation and therefore potentially abusive.

    On record, as far as we can see and tell from the opinions of those that worked with Brendan Eich, how many people at Mozilla has Brendan Eich discriminated against because of their sexual orientation? My guess, and only my guess I know, is none. A more conspiratorial guess would be any gay person because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, ergo he must not like gay people. A more balance view point would be that the two people that started this whole thing actually expected him to apologise and the issue to disappear, by no stretch of the imagination meaning that there was most likely a quiet confidence in the man emanating from two gay men.

    Now where are all the other people that supported Prop 8 in positions of perceived public power? Should they all, one by one, be ousted from their jobs? And what litmus paper will be used to decide? At what point are they seen as a threat to all same sex people on every issue? Is there a monetary value? Or is it a time vs money vs perceived level of vitriol?

    This was a grey area, way murkier than the black and white arguments of this forum. Hence why he was appointed in the first place.

    EDIT: I would like you to understand that to an extent I am playing devils advocate here. I don't think it is appropriate for a public and active, politically mobile homophobic man/woman to be in charge of a organisation such as Mozilla. I just don't think he is the out and out homophobe the public wanted to lynch.
     
  12. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,256
    Likes Received:
    1,684
    I'm not equating beating one's wife with opposing gay marriage (although both acts are disrespectful to other humans); I'm asking whether someone should be in a job the values, ethics and philosophy of which are in contradiction with his personal beliefs and behaviour.

    I'm sure that Eich behaved as a pleasant colleague at work. But I wonder how a gay colleague would feel about working with --or under-- him, knowing that he actively supported a campaign that would deny him/her to marry their partner. Sure, colleagues should be able to get past their personal differences and stay professional, but this is not just about "live and let live" anymore; by donating to Proposition 8 Eich crossed that line and people now know that of him: that he will cross the "live and let live" boundary on that issue. They don't trust him anymore.

    I was reading an interesting article about misogyny in the tech industry. The article illustrates that male coders do not have to behave in pejorative ways towards the female colleague directly for her to start feeling decidedly disrespected and outcast. A culture of misogyny can encourage attitudes and behaviours that are unprofessional but remain unchallenged. Companies have to watch their culture. It can make or break them (as Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust has found). I guess that is what Mozilla is trying to do.
     
  13. t5kcannon

    t5kcannon Member

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2011
    Posts:
    140
    Likes Received:
    2
    "Erm..."

    That's an extraordinarily bad argument, which I'm surprised someone wrote down.

    You are NOT comparing like for like. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. Like it, or not, that's marriage. Pay, for example, is not even similar in kind or type relative to marriage, unless you pre-suppose some inherent difference between a black and a white to get your argument to work. That is, it seems to me that you have to inject some racist pre-supposition to get your argument to work.

    The whole notion of extending the established institution of marriage to gays is nonsense of the highest order. You really should read this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...Sewell-Why-Im-no-convert-to-gay-marriage.html
     
  14. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,256
    Likes Received:
    1,684
    Is it? In any case, we can take that debate over here.

    You are missing Guinevere's point. She is not trying to equate racism, misogyny and paedophilia to homophobia. She is stating that it is not possible to subscribe to a core tenet of a prejudice while at the same time claiming not to be prejudiced.
     
    Last edited: 6 Apr 2014
  15. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,199
    Likes Received:
    155
    So really it's a very straight forward question. Should you hire a sociopath?No. It's not a good idea. Sociopaths make bad counsellors.
     
  16. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,256
    Likes Received:
    1,684
    Yup. And while there's no way I wish to argue that Eich is a sociopath (we all are somewhere on that continuum, some of the time), he did cross a "live and let live" boundary and therefore is experienced as incongruent. And that makes people suspicious.
     
  17. Yadda

    Yadda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2003
    Posts:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    49
    Harold Shipman!?? Oh my life. LOL. I think you should compare him to Hitler and get Godwin out of the way. Go on Nexxo, you know you want to. :)
     
  18. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,256
    Likes Received:
    1,684
    You haven't been following the conversation, have you? It's OK if you don't get it, but ridicule is a poor way of hiding it.
     
  19. Yadda

    Yadda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2003
    Posts:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    49
    OK, whatever you say Nexxo.
     
  20. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,256
    Likes Received:
    1,684
    Yeah... And so is that, really. :p
     

Share This Page