Mozilla CEO quits......
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Chad-K. said:
@scottalanmiller
He wasn't CEO when he donated the money.Does that matter? He chose to impact his career and the board opted to allow it to have happened.
Just like things you say online or tattoos you are making a permanent decision when you do these things. Honestly it makes him an idiot and a bad candidate for CEO - it shows a horrible understanding of actions and consequences. Not a failing one wants in a leader.
Only in that he didn't do it as CEO -
@Chad-K. said:
@Bill-Kindle
It's hypocritical to be against equality personally and work for an organization that promotes it. People will look at the situation and say "How long until he changes the organization in a way that pulls it away from where it is and toward those views that are in opposition to the companies history and stated ambitions". This isn't good for business.But at the same time doesn't it alienate the same people who may hold different beliefs? Isn't that the same thing? like role reversal?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Chad-K. said:
@scottalanmiller
He wasn't CEO when he donated the money.Does that matter? He chose to impact his career and the board opted to allow it to have happened.
Just like things you say online or tattoos you are making a permanent decision when you do these things. Honestly it makes him an idiot and a bad candidate for CEO - it shows a horrible understanding of actions and consequences. Not a failing one wants in a leader.
So he does something long before he was a CEO. I've made some bad decisions life (who hasn't?) but does that make me an eternal idiot and unqualified to run a company?
-
If it is on this scale, which is pretty huge, yes, it would generally disqualify you from running a public company or being a spokesperson for one. People who intend to make CEO a career objective have to be planning for that their entire life. No different than running for office.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Chad-K. said:
@scottalanmiller
He wasn't CEO when he donated the money.Does that matter? He chose to impact his career and the board opted to allow it to have happened.
Just like things you say online or tattoos you are making a permanent decision when you do these things. Honestly it makes him an idiot and a bad candidate for CEO - it shows a horrible understanding of actions and consequences. Not a failing one wants in a leader.
So he does something long before he was a CEO. I've made some bad decisions life (who hasn't?) but does that make me an eternal idiot and unqualified to run a company?
He could have survived if he'd apologized. But he gave a non-apology, which means he's still a homophobe.
@Bill-Kindle said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Chad-K. said:
@scottalanmiller
He wasn't CEO when he donated the money.Does that matter? He chose to impact his career and the board opted to allow it to have happened.
Just like things you say online or tattoos you are making a permanent decision when you do these things. Honestly it makes him an idiot and a bad candidate for CEO - it shows a horrible understanding of actions and consequences. Not a failing one wants in a leader.
So he does something long before he was a CEO. I've made some bad decisions life (who hasn't?) but does that make me an eternal idiot and unqualified to run a company?
-
Remember, political contributions are public record. This is him doing something voluntary that has similarities to an arrest record. It was a massive, foolish professional risk. And for what purpose?
This is someone who wanted to promote this agenda so strongly that he willingly risked his career over it. This isn't drinking too much on a weekend. This isn't a tattoo. This is truly a big deal both in his actions and his understanding of their ramifications to himself and his employer.
-
Yes. He had a way to fix this but didn't. He has his priorities and that's "fine". He is allowed to be that guy. And everyone else is allowed to be offended and upset with someone that employees him. He spoke with his wallet and his customers spoke with theirs.
-
Came across another perspective on the situation today:
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Came across another perspective on the situation today:
That's exactly how I feel. What we are seeing is tolerance through intolerance I believe.
http://www.str.org/articles/the-intolerance-of-tolerance#.U0BKEPnIYlQ
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Came across another perspective on the situation today:
That's exactly how I feel. What we are seeing is tolerance through intolerance I believe.
http://www.str.org/articles/the-intolerance-of-tolerance#.U0BKEPnIYlQ
Maybe, but that's like saying that it's okay to be a bully, it's only bad if you try to protect the kid being beat up. I think that there is a big difference between actively respecting people and indifference. I understand the idea and there is no perfect answer. But I feel this is the ultimate in PC... it's okay for people to be evil or mean or bullies. You have to be neutral but no one else does. It's seems like an excuse to me. An excuse not to stand up, not to protect the weak, not to do the right thing.
The bottom line is, complete tolerance is bad. Tolerating evil is bad. Tolerating bullying is bad.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
Tolerance itself is not a good or a bad thing, that's the modern mistake. Tolerance of good is good. Tolerance of bad is bad. Tolerance is neither good nor bad.
-
For example, I don't want to "tolerate" gay rights. Wanting other people to be treated fairly and well isn't "tolerating." I actively want gay rights. And I don't want to tolerate people hating other people for their differences. Hatred isn't something good to tolerate. Equal rights are not something to tolerate. One is something to be fought against, the other something to be fought for. Tolerance implies putting up with something you might not agree with. It sounds nice, but it is marketing... spin.
