Thoughtcrime

[Ironside]

Is it acceptable to force someone from their job for a political view? A political donation? A political vote?

Apparently so.

Brendan Eich, only recently appointed CEO of Mozilla, was forced to resign due to the firestorm over his 2008 donation of $1000 in favor of Prop8. He stated in a recent interview how he separates his personal beliefs from his job....

People should be appalled by this. Perhaps Mozilla, when choosing it's new CEO, should have a checklist of hot-button political issues that you must be in favor of before you can be considered?

Yes? Or at the very least, not publically oppose. Who could've guessed that having or getting a public persona would affect on what you can say and do in public?

Don't pretend that funding an opinion by proxy is in any way different than saying that opinion yourself. In fact it's in some ways stronger, since it means money talk instead of hot air. If I'm mr "Extremely Rich" and finance 50% of the Republican party, while publically voting Democrat, am I a Republican or Democrat?

A CEO is in many ways a public speaker of a company. That means that a notable opinion of the CEO have been met by, at the very least, a stamp of acceptance by the company. People can then point out their opinion about this acceptance. If they would be forced to accept that, it would be the thought crime you decry.

Private opinions vs professionalism. When do your personal opinion colour your actions when your professional opinion should officially be reversed? That's a fair question. And depends on the person. That means that there's no good absolute answer, so the good old crowd opinion becomes the driving force.

As for your starting questions. No, it's not right. But it's legal there and has been for a long time there. Do you honestly believe that a worker supporting gay rights 20 years ago could give financial support to that opinion and not risk his job? But now it's suddenly a thought crime to do the same thing, when you feel to be on the recieving end? Two wrongs doesn't make a right, that's true. But then you try to fix the error, not trying to pretend that only the first wrong is wrong and the second wrong was right all the time.

[Xiahou]

Do you honestly believe that a worker supporting gay rights 20 years ago could give financial support to that opinion and not risk his job?

Yes, I do.

But now it's suddenly a thought crime to do the same thing, when you feel to be on the recieving end? Two wrongs doesn't make a right, that's true. But then you try to fix the error, not trying to pretend that only the first wrong is wrong and the second wrong was right all the time.

You'd think the group that was the object of such societal exclusion and ostracism would think twice before doing the same to others. The gay marriage issue had a majority opposed to it (including our president) until just a few short years ago. Now holding that opinion is grounds for discrimination in their minds? Remember, he was given an out- asked to disavow his views on gay marriage. No one accused him of treating homosexuals differently at Mozilla- all accounts say he was extremely fair and inclusive. But, acting in conformity wasn't enough- he needed to think in conformity.

You'd think that Californians, in particular, would be reticent about blacklisting people based on their beliefs.

[Sir Moody]

Personally i have no problem with this - had he been forced out by the Government (either state or Federal) then I would have a problem but customers are completely able to voice their frustrations at a CEO for what ever reason - if the company chooses to listen to the customers then that's that.

They actually stuck by him for quite a bit until Ok Cupid stuck the knife in (they prompted Mozilla users to change browser in order to use Ok Cupid) at which point they decided it was hurting the company to keep him on... probably a good decision

[Montmorency]

But, acting in conformity wasn't enough- he needed to think in conformity.

He didn't act in conformity. Quite the opposite in fact.

You'd think the group that was the object of such societal exclusion and ostracism would think twice before doing the same to others.

You'd think the Jews would have just forgiven the Nazis once WW2 ended and not pressed the issue by hunting them down...

For example, nobody (I hope) would say that somebody should be able to yell the particulars about his latest sexual encounter in the street - that is without the bounds of what free speech was ever intended for.

Yelling anything is a public disturbance...

[Montmorency]

Something also missed by the label "Thoughtcrime": there is no such thing (yet).

To speak is an action. To write is an action.

All crimes are actions at the moment. Don't get ahead of yourself.

[Xiahou]

Personally i have no problem with this - had he been forced out by the Government (either state or Federal) then I would have a problem but customers are completely able to voice their frustrations at a CEO for what ever reason - if the company chooses to listen to the customers then that's that.

They actually stuck by him for quite a bit until Ok Cupid stuck the knife in (they prompted Mozilla users to change browser in order to use Ok Cupid) at which point they decided it was hurting the company to keep him on... probably a good decision

You're missing my point. Of course they're allowed to do that. I'm highlighting the hypocrisy in blacklisting someone for their views in the name of inclusiveness. It's an Orwellian mindset. "All views are welcome- as long as they agree with us."

[Montmorency]

All views are welcome- as long as they agree with us."

'All views are welcome as long as they are not directly opposite to ours' would be a better representation.

You speak as though this is a strange perspective - it's really not. I guarantee you that not a single person on Earth would welcome someone with opposite views.

E.g. 'I hate murder.'

'Murder is awesome, and you're wrong for hating it.'

'Let's agree to disagree.'

^^^Never happens.

[Ironside]

Yes, I do.

In that case, you're either very naive, or the opposers of gay marriage are way more aggressive nowadays.
A teacher got fired here. A school administrator here.
Catholics seems to be most aggressive against it.

You'd think the group that was the object of such societal exclusion and ostracism would think twice before doing the same to others.

History teaches us that they learn the opposite. They know how effective it was against them.

The gay marriage issue had a majority opposed to it (including our president) until just a few short years ago. Now holding that opinion is grounds for discrimination in their minds? Remember, he was given an out- asked to disavow his views on gay marriage. No one accused him of treating homosexuals differently at Mozilla- all accounts say he was extremely fair and inclusive. But, acting in conformity wasn't enough- he needed to think in conformity.

Holding an opinion strongly enough to financiallly support it (making it your public opinion and not your private one) as a public person and as a representative of company means that people are allowed to boycot that company. Agreed? That it has gotten enough traction to be a successful boycot doesn't change that. Social activism is one of the main ways to create change. Good or bad? Depends on if you like the change or not.

Giving money counts as an act. He was asked if he had changed his mind on that act. He said no. He certainly did not act in conformity. What you talk about is active workplace discrimination and that is something else.

If they start to prevent him to get any job, then it starts to become like the Hollywood blacklisting. It's a huge difference between being a representative in a company and simply working for the company.