Brendan Eich, Prop 8, Mozilla, and the "moral hazard" of his ouster

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Okay, but I'd say that what I wrote is still applicable.

As for it being a non-political issue, I guess politicize is the wrong word. I should say something more like what I said earlier, about turning the workplace into a spot where social punishment is metted out.

It already is, although that's been getting a lot better in the past 40-50 years.

LouZiffer: I think we crossed, in edits--I agree, but why stop that progress?. This is an issue that goes beyond this topic (yet does have a bit of a connection to the thread, ironically) but as we become less and less anonymous, the idea of the workplace as a spot where we met out social punishment becomes more and more problematic.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

LouZiffer: I think we crossed, in edits--I agree, but why stop that progress?. This is an issue that goes beyond this topic (yet does have a bit of a connection to the thread, ironically) but as we become less and less anonymous, the idea of the workplace as a spot where we met out social punishment becomes more and more problematic.

I agree that we need to separate that from the topic of this thread. To me, Eich's resignation had nothing to do with meting out social punishment and everything to do with ensuring that's not something which occurs within Mozilla. It's a deliberate move the other way. Whether we want to discuss "Hope there's no backswing against white Christian males for our actions in the past!" or "Hope political correctness doesn't turn our workplace into the thought police!", this thread is a poor place for it IMO.

(I'm not meaning to say those are your arguments, but I am putting forth a couple that I've seen in other forums as plainly as I've seen them. When I boil down the slippery slope stuff into its essence, those two stand out.)

The protection of the straight, white, Christian male is endemic in our system. True equality can only be achieved by taking away privileged statuses for everyone, including them. To them, it also looks like they're losing something - and they are. But it's something no one else has to begin with, and something that no single group deserves by any measurable, objective marker.

LouZiffer: And I'm in agreement about the case of Eich is a poor one for that discussion. As for whether we might have to separate that into another thread, I guess, but only because it's of such larger scope and not because it's irrelevant. I get ya you're not meaning to say I'm putting forth those arguments. For what it's worth, I'm putting forth an argument that I also put forth in the Police State threads as to why some of us are not as alarmed as others are.

edit: well, on second thought, I guess it's maybe like the latter one you listed.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

edit: well, on second thought, I guess it's maybe like the latter one you listed.

Like many good arguments, it can sound crappy without its nuances. That doesn't mean it's worthless. Maybe if I weren't tired of the topic already I'd make one. Haha. As it is, I'll say that I'm not averse to participating.

LouZiffer: no worries, I get you were just giving the shortest of shorthand. ; D

I mean, what's the saying about when fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in the flag, carrying the cross? Maybe when 1984 comes to America, it'll be on sale with a 2 year contract, compatible with high-margin accessories you can buy to 'personalize' it.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

But when it came time recently for him to have to face that, he planted both feet. A better man would have said, "I'm sorry" not because he was being browbeaten or shamed or whatever himself, but because the crap Prop 8 did was objectively awful. "I do not support gay marriage but I cannot condone the methods the Proposition 8 campaign employed" would have been a statement I could understand.

"I'm sorry for the hurt I've caused" objectively recognizes that the campaign did harm - I think you're claiming secret knowledge of his underlying motives here. I see the foot plant here as a refusal to lie about his underlying moral beliefs - and I don't see that in a negative light.

Objectively? Not really the correct use of the word, there. It's certainly a possibility, and I could read that into it, but I wouldn't want to be claiming secret knowledge of his underlying motives. I think, given the fact the whole issue swirled directly around that contribution, hedging around mentioning it directly is more reasonably interpreted as an act of someone who does not see the harm they did. Sure, an assumption, but so is yours, and eventually "well that's an assumption" is not actually a deflection when it's not a poor assumption.

As I said, I am not so concerned with the donation itself, but the refusal to actually face the wrongness of that campaign. I hope you're not implying that I or others would want to see him lie or that we wouldn't see such lying in a negative light.

Instead, as is so popular these days, the person doing or enabling attacks on others instead tries to quickly take the title of victim themselves. Pathetic.

When did he paint himself as the victim? Cite please.

Eich? He didn't, to my knowledge. That may have been a poor segue, but I was speaking more to those who have rallied to this banner of "my free speech is being curtailed" or "we're being bullied!"

Quick: how seriously would you take me if I said, "obviously everyone who doesn't want to see gay people married would also like to see them beaten in the streets?" Hopefully, you'd say I was an idiot, and that you have no need to argue with idiots, and would like to discuss this issue with someone who is not a goddamned idiot. Equating people who oppose gay marriage to the smaller crowd of people who literally wish violence on homosexuals is certainly not fair.

Certainly everyone would reject this carefully constructed reverse strawman. Except that someone draws this comparison on page 1 of this thread - feel free to be the first person to call them out.

Another swing and a miss at the "oooh hypocrisy" gotcha, as RNG pointed out.

Dissent is useful in many cases. But dissent itself is not explicitly valuable. And valuable dissent is not always equal in value to other forms of dissent. This keeps going around and around and around.

So you're either defining "value" here as "ideas judged valuable by me, Bloo Driver" or "ideas that more than 50% of society agrees with", unless there's an objective standard here I'm not aware of. The problems with applying either definition of value when it comes to expressing a political belief should be readily apparent.

Or you're just forcefully ignoring the third option - the point I was actually trying to make. Of course all dissent is not of equal value. Nowhere did I actually bother with who or what gets to be final arbiter of that value, as you want to pretend, because it is certainly subjective. The whole "let's be fair to this viewpoint" argument is constructed around this notion that dissent for its own sake is valuable, and dissent of all kinds is equal. Otherwise, the people making this comparison would engage in the discussion of the worth of their dissent. But articles like this don't. They never get beyond that, "Well he has a right to express himself!" Of course he does. But that's a false pass. The issue is not, among reasonable people, "Eich dared to make an unpopular opinion*" no matter how many people keep trying to drag that goalpost.

So it just comes back to, "why do we have to give this opinion due and fair consideration as if it were something else?" Note, the question is not, "Why do we have to let people say things" or "why do people get to have opinions" or whatnot, because despite what the article and those like it would like to pretend, that's not the end goal of many folks who had a problem with Eich.

I find it kind of fitting that instead of actually discussing the meat of what I mentioned, you decided to pick apart a few things, twist them beyond what I said in order to find the flaws. A good reminder of:

1) The whole mess in particular. So far, I have yet to see anyone actually make a substantive issue against what actually happened to Eich. Instead, we see people grasping at phantom "what if" situations, odd hyperbole, and trying to equivocate it to things that didn't happen.

2) Why I stopped bothering with this forum, since so many people believe simply dissenting itself and scoring a few points makes their posts worthwhile rather than actually trying to discuss the ideas. If you want to actually talk about what happened to Eich and discuss what I am communicating, I'll try to engage you in good faith, but for now I don't see that going anywhere.

(*an opinion which, curiously, is either popular with a majority or not, subjectively based on the argument used to defend him)

disregard

Bloo, you might have missed it because I can't use quotes yet, but I think I discussed the meat of what you mentioned, it's just that it led to the conclusion "we're gonna need a bigger thread."

IMAGE(http://csublogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/jaws.png)

I haven't seen this posted yet, but I feel it bears repeating.

IMAGE(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png)

I don't think it does: at least for the last couple of pages, we've been attentive to distinguish between Socially Free Speech, and 1st Amendment Legally Free Speech. The two are not the same, but I think there are some similarities.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I don't think it does: at least for the last couple of pages, we've been attentive to distinguish between Socially Free Speech, and 1st Amendment Legally Free Speech. The two are not the same, but I think there are some similarities.

I think it's also talking about socially free speech though. Either way, they're still being shown the door.

SixteenBlue, it says right in the first panel "government can't arrest your for what you say." Unless he's talking about, I don't know, a Max Barry book, that interpretation makes no sense.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

SixteenBlue, it says right in the first panel "government can't arrest your for what you say." Unless he's talking about, I don't know, a Max Barry book, that interpretation makes no sense.

Did you read my last sentence though? What do you think either way meant?

Are you trying to say there's a point beyond just the PSA about the First Amendment? Oh, I agree with that, but it has nothing to do with Socially Free Speech. It has to do with how there's probably a strong correspondence between people who talk about the First Amendment when it has nothing to do with the situation and people who are A-holes. On that I agree--I laughed just like I assume you did the first time I saw it. But that has nothing to do with claiming certain speech should be socially free. To the contrary, it's about people who can't grasp that difference, and how honestly, they ususally have bigger problems than just a lack of legal facts.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Are you trying to say there's a point beyond just the PSA about the First Amendment? Oh, I agree with that, but it has nothing to do with Socially Free Speech. It has to do with how there's probably a strong correspondence between people who talk about the First Amendment when it has nothing to do with the situation and people who are A-holes. On that I agree--I laughed just like I assume you did the first time I saw it. But that has nothing to do with claiming certain speech should be socially free. To the contrary, it's about people who can't grasp that difference, and how honestly, they ususally have bigger problems than just a lack of legal facts.

I'm saying either way, the "you're an asshole being shown the door" point applies, regardless of type of free speech.

No, because lots of people the author probably doesn't think are a-holes get yelled at and endure criticism or consequences and otherwise don't get the social freedom of speech he believes they deserve, so that interpretation wouldn't make sense.

edit: maybe an example will help--I'm sure there are Creationists who want to get the show "Cosmos" cancelled. They're probably boycotting it. I'm pretty sure he's not going to explain that by saying "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an A-hole."

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

No, because lots of people the author probably doesn't think are a-holes get yelled at and endure criticism or consequences and otherwise don't get the social freedom of speech he believes they deserve, so that interpretation wouldn't make sense.

edit: maybe an example will help--I'm sure there are Creationists who want to get the show "Cosmos" cancelled. They're probably boycotting it. I'm pretty sure he's not going to explain that by saying "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an A-hole."

No, they'll say he's a godless heathen who's trying to lead people away from God and Jesus because he doesn't agree with them. It's, to my mind, somewhat of a greater insult, as they're suggesting he's trying to corrupt people away from God to make their souls burn for all eternity with the devil and his fake fossils.

Thai Buddhists will frequently say that someone "will not make a good death". In the words of one my favorite authors: "It makes f*ck you look like a benediction by comparison." Just because they're not using any words that the FCC censors doesn't mean their intent or their level of malice behind their words is any better.

But, that's why he's not doing shows on Christian TV. If he tried to run a show on a Christian TV network and then tried to complain when they fired him for his program not upholding their worldview... I would call NDT an idiotic smart person.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Bloo, you might have missed it because I can't use quotes yet, but I think I discussed the meat of what you mentioned, it's just that it led to the conclusion "we're gonna need a bigger thread."

I did, apparently. But, to be fair, I didn't say no one wants to engage on this (or whatever else). I just mentioned that there are a fair number of people who don't bother. I find this worth discussing because I think people on either side of this issue are rapidly losing sight of the actual problem at hand and it worries me.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I agree that the contents of the dissent is not valuable, but it's the capability to dissent itself that is being called valuable. I know we're talking about Socially Free Speech here and not 1st Amendment Legally Free Speech, but it's like how a movie such as Gigli gets the same free speech protections as Citizen Kane.

As for "So why is it being framed as so reasonable and enlightened to equate people who are happy to see Eich gone with people who say "you are not allowed to have an opinion"?", I don't think it's being framed that way. I think it's being framed as equating people who are happy to see Eich gone with people who say 'opposition to gay marriage is a punishable offense you should lose your job* over'

*acknowleding the issues brought up about which jobs you should lose and which you can keep.

I get what you're saying here, but the disconnect I'm seeing is this - Dan Cathy still has a job as CEO. I don't think people find that wrong and unusual. Clearly there are people who would like to see him gone, but that wasn't the crux of that boycott. People may have clamored for him to be fired, but when the dust settled, the issue with Dan Cathy and Chik-Fil-A was not "Dan Cathy doesn't support gay marriage, fire him and get him away" it was that he was using his company's money for anti gay marriage efforts and so people wanted to boycott. So with that in mind, the situation is not as such (people saying "opposition to gay marriage is a punishable offense you should lose your job over"). But articles like the one in question keep acting like that's the singular line of thought - the opposition to people like Eich are throwing a tantrum, screaming for them to be fired, shut their mouth, be duct taped forever, and so on. I don't appreciate it personally, and on a more logical level, it's dishonest. Mozilla is a company that encourages diversity and actively encouraged things that their CEO was clearly spending his money to push back against. Even though his statement said, paraphrased, "me and the company remain committed to this" it also said "I know that actions speak louder than words". And on that second note, too late, friend, unless you want to honestly say you have changed your stance. The dissonance there is clear and obvious, and yet we have this hand wringing over "what has the gay mafia become!" and whatnot, but it doesn't actually address what really happened.

Eich had a moment where he could have said, "You know what, that was something I believed then, but I don't agree with that anymore," assuming that was the truth. Instead, he hedged, which means he hasn't actually changed his mind. Which, hey - free country. He's free to have that opinion. But if I was being named the CEO of a company that places a certain idea front and center of their business' ethics and I clearly do not actively support that, it makes sense that maybe I should not be the CEO.

So trying to frame this even as what you described above is still an intellectual sleight of hand (not on your part, but those who are trying to use Eich's situation as some sort of general barometer). I can't draw windows into the minds of others, but I think it's a fair assumption that the finger wagging and tongue clucking and other body-noun motion-verbing all get predicated on concepts that aren't addressing the actual situation.

Bloo Driver: that makes me think it's an issue of what the actual problem is. I agree Eich's situation shouldn't be used as a general barometer, but Eich's sitaution kicked off a larger discussion. I don't think it's a matter of losing sight of the actual problem as much as moving on from one small problem that actually happend to another, bigger-but-abstract problem.

Looking back at your earlier posts now, am I right in saying your problem is that the larger issue of 'social punishment in the workplace' is in some sense a myth? That it's a discussion not worth having because when it comes to *actual* incidents of boycotting homophobes, there's always another factor involved, like Dan Cathy was also funneling profits towards anti-gay initiatives, and this guy pissed off the people at his company?

I agree that sometimes those 'what if' situations are part of Derailing 101, but I disagree that's what's happening here. I don't see it so much as people losing sight of the issue as people having a different opinion than you on whether that larger discussion is also an actual problem. But am I seeing your point more clearly now?

Demosthenes: since I'm posting anyway, I'll repeat it here--We're not talking about what the Creationists would say, we're talking about what the author of xkcd would say because SixteenBlue thinks that comic means something I don't think it means.

And given that part of what he's talking about in that strip is the stopping of hosting a TV program, which relates pretty well to a certain dark hunter with a dynasty of a sort. I'd say the XKCD strip is talking about free speech in any setting. I'd actually say the host you while you share it part is where we diverge from talking solely about what's legal and where it moves into the what is or is not considered socially acceptable by the people who own TV networks, online forums, etc...

RoughneckGeek wrote:

I'm confused by the preoccupation with the comic.

He pretty quickly transitions from defining the 1st amendment protection of free speech in the first panel to describing how society responds to free speech in the remaining five.

It pretty clearly shuts down the whole argument in favor that something is wrong with reacting to speech in society, so of course the comic must be wrong somehow.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Bloo Driver: that makes me think it's an issue of what the actual problem is. I agree Eich's situation shouldn't be used as a general barometer, but Eich's sitaution kicked off a larger discussion. I don't think it's a matter of losing sight of the actual problem as much as moving on from one small problem that actually happend to another, bigger-but-abstract problem.

Looking back at your earlier posts now, am I right in saying your problem is that the larger issue of 'social punishment in the workplace' is in some sense a myth? That it's a discussion not worth having because when it comes to *actual* incidents of boycotting homophobes, there's always another factor involved, like Dan Cathy was also funneling profits towards anti-gay initiatives, and this guy pissed off the people at his company?

I agree that sometimes those 'what if' situations are part of Derailing 101, but I disagree that's what's happening here. I don't see it so much as people losing sight of the issue as people having a different opinion than you on whether that larger discussion is also an actual problem. But am I seeing your point more clearly now?

Keep in mind that I was trying to respond to that article in specific. If it was trying to use Eich as a springboard, it probably shouldn't, just because that would still be trying to equivocate inequal situations.

I don't believe that social punishment in the workplace is a total myth, no. You can easily find people who are penalized at their jobs (fired or not) for what they believe politically across the whole spectrum. But what I'm finding in this particular discussing swirling around Eich is the need to connect what happened to him with this purported "trend" or "intolerance" but all I'm getting is a bunch of "well what if" situations. As a logical exercise, sure it might be valuable. And certainly, I don't think someone should be outright fired because of what they believe - if that is not damaging the company. People should be free to express themselves, but this idea that a person's beliefs might not jive with the "face" the company wants to put forward is not sudden and new with Eich. So I guess I'm just constantly confused by the context articles (and discussions similar but not identical to this one) try to put it in: some sort of growing trend that is really unfair.

So yes I agree there is an abstract problem, but I just get the sense some folks are trying to anchor it to an actual problem to try and yank that abstract out of the Negative Zone and into reality. I don't appreciate that my stance of "Eich's consequences are fair and reasonable" is being equated by this article and people using the same line of reasoning to say that I'm being the bully now, the intolerant one, how dare I, what monsters have we become, etc.

And, unfortunately, discussing the abstract problem at all sets me on edge a little bit, because it shifts the conversation broadly away from what actually happened, the actual problem, and so forth. It gives ammunition to people who want to be the ones who totally flip the paradigm upside down and make it no longer about the actual inequality. So while the discussion here, for example, may not be doing that broadly, articles like this certainly do.

I can't help but be reminded of the Dixie Chicks boycott, and how rabidly the conservatives defended that it was okay, that you can't escape the consequences of your speech.

Eich was being boycotted by a sufficiently large number of Mozilla employees that he felt couldn't be effective as CEO anymore.

If one was fair, the other certainly was, too. This is not the strong oppressing the weak, it's the weak refusing to cooperate with the strong.

People being shamed into keeping unpopular opinions to themselves is not illegal.

nel e nel wrote:

People being shamed into keeping unpopular opinions to themselves is not illegal.

Illegal, no, but I think it's more of a "is that *okay*". I'll be blunt and say as a rule, I don't think shaming or embarrassing people into silence over unpopular (or popular) opinions is the way to go at all.

edit: for all values of "embarrass" that mean the point-and-mock way. If people want to explain WHY someone should not hold that opinion or why the opinion itself is wrong, that might lead to embarrassment, sure.

Well, that's why I chose 'shame' specifically: it implies that something is socially/morally reprehensible as versus 'embarrass' which implies something that is seen as more socially awkward.

Bloo Driver wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

People being shamed into keeping unpopular opinions to themselves is not illegal.

Illegal, no, but I think it's more of a "is that *okay*". I'll be blunt and say as a rule, I don't think shaming or embarrassing people into silence over unpopular (or popular) opinions is the way to go at all.

edit: for all values of "embarrass" that mean the point-and-mock way. If people want to explain WHY someone should not hold that opinion or why the opinion itself is wrong, that might lead to embarrassment, sure.

I dunno, Rancher Bundy suddenly having the need to express everything wrong with "the negro" is something I kind of feel like we should all point and laugh at him on.