SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It has been a little while now that this fledgling community has been around and it remains one of my favorite stories about communities. A splinter of a much larger community took it upon themselves to challenge the rest and make a move to a new home. Shedding the shackles that were being placed on them was a bold move, but one that has been fantastic.
The community here is great, but here is my question. Overall, we are amazingly tolerant of others, of the choices they make, and of their beliefs. I would then be curious, if we are such a tolerant group, how do we address intolerance in our ranks? I recently came across what I can only say filled me with pity and sadness. I find it saddening that in this day and age, and especially in this group, there are still such hate-filled people.
But this poses a question: how does a group that is tolerant deal with intolerance within it's ranks? Does our acceptance of others extend to accepting someone that has thoughts and beliefs which are far from the norm within this community, or is there a limit placed on how far from our own values a member of the community may be?
(Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday April 13 2014, @11:23PM
From the Mozilla Project's official rules:
(i) Inclusion and Diversity
The Mozilla Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone. It doesn’t matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact constructively with our community, including, but not limited to people of varied age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views.
Mozilla-based activities should be inclusive and should support such diversity.
Some Mozillians may identify with activities or organizations that do not support the same inclusion and diversity standards as Mozilla. When this is the case:
(a) support for exclusionary practices must not be carried into Mozilla activities.
(b) support for exclusionary practices in non-Mozilla activities should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.
(c) when if (a) and (b) are met, other Mozillians should treat this as a private matter, not a Mozilla issue.
Mozilla didn't fire Eich, and didn't force him to resign. He resigned because so many other people were being intolerant assholes that he felt if would be best for the project that he did. But don't say he was acting against Mozilla's rules: Mozilla says that as long as he keeps his beliefs to himself *WHEN INVOLVED WITH MOZILLA*, __NOT__ WHEN VOTING OR ENGAGING IN NON-MOZILLA POLITICAL ACTIVITY*, he can think, say, and do whatever he wants. I see no reason anything should be different just because he's CEO. The CEO is responsible for enforcing corporate policy, yes, but that can be done without agreeing with every tiny little aspect of the corporate policy he's been hired to enforce. Most semi-intelligent people can follow and enforce codes of conduct they don't entirely agree with. He starts pulling benefits for gay couples who are Mozilla employees, call for his head _THEN_. Not before.
Unfortunately, it's too late for that case ... the intolerant people won.
---linuxrocks123
(Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Sunday April 13 2014, @11:30PM
> I see no reason anything should be different just because he's CEO.
Let me guess:
You don't believe that structural racism is possible.
That if someone isn't outright, loud and proud about practicing discrimination, then they aren't discriminating.
That deeply held beliefs do not bias a person's decision making process.
Right?
(Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday April 16 2014, @02:24PM
Yes, Brendan Eich founded Mozilla and then stayed with the project for 15 years so he could one day finally be in a position to MAKE GAY EMPLOYEES' SPOUSES GET THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE. MWA-HA-HA-HA! ...oh, wait, he outright stated he didn't want to do that. Hmm.
Sure, it's possible he could have been a passive-aggressive asshole toward gay employees if he'd been allowed to stay on. The time to deal with that would have been after he'd actually done that, because most people, no matter what their private political beliefs, don't act that way.
---linuxrocks123