There was a lot of anger about Brendan being appointed CEO. There has been a lot of anger since he quit. It is in no way my place to tell people when they should and should not be angry. One of the big points made by progressive movements is that everyone has a right to get angry about things which affect them and people who aren't affected shouldn't tell people not to be angry. Doing so is a control tactic and just generally unfair (especially where it intersects with myths and stereotypes - 'the gay agenda', 'the angry black woman', etc.). I agree. It is one reason I said nothing much about the whole affair. Better for me to listen.
Still, after all this has played out (hopefully), I am left feeling a bit angry myself. And a lot disappointed. Previously, I have mostly agreed with the progressive movements (feminism, LGBT rights, anti-racism, and so forth). When I have not agreed, I have often had my mind changed. I have learnt a lot and I have a great respect for many people in these movements. It feels bad to be on the wrong side of that. It seems to me that the subtlety in the discussion was lost - assumptions were made, opinions were fought for, there was not much attempt to establish empathy and tolerance, nor to accurately learn the specifics of the situation.
Back to anger. Though it is important not to tell people when they are allowed to get angry or what that anger should look like, I would like to suggest how that anger should be used. Anger can be constructive - it is one of the most motivating human emotions and has led to great changes over the years. It can also be amazingly destructive with no purpose - from a child's tantrum to pretty much every war ever fought. Sometimes it is good, emotionally, to get angry and break things. But we must try to put some thought into what gets broken. It was in large part anger that brought LGBT (and other civil) rights to where they are today. We need more of that, and less just breaking stuff, even if it makes us feel better.
In the last couple of weeks we've seen a lot of (justified) anger, but the result has not been positive. Things got broken, but nothing has changed for the better. A small, non-profit organisation which fights for freedom and privacy on the internet against corporate interests and overbearing governments has been damaged in many ways. All to harm a man who made a semi-public donation to an admittedly odious cause. I can't think of anyone who's life has got better from this, maybe some CEOs of other companies who probably have private views worse than Brendan's, but weren't as honest about declaring them.
Still, after all this has played out (hopefully), I am left feeling a bit angry myself. And a lot disappointed. Previously, I have mostly agreed with the progressive movements (feminism, LGBT rights, anti-racism, and so forth). When I have not agreed, I have often had my mind changed. I have learnt a lot and I have a great respect for many people in these movements. It feels bad to be on the wrong side of that. It seems to me that the subtlety in the discussion was lost - assumptions were made, opinions were fought for, there was not much attempt to establish empathy and tolerance, nor to accurately learn the specifics of the situation.
Back to anger. Though it is important not to tell people when they are allowed to get angry or what that anger should look like, I would like to suggest how that anger should be used. Anger can be constructive - it is one of the most motivating human emotions and has led to great changes over the years. It can also be amazingly destructive with no purpose - from a child's tantrum to pretty much every war ever fought. Sometimes it is good, emotionally, to get angry and break things. But we must try to put some thought into what gets broken. It was in large part anger that brought LGBT (and other civil) rights to where they are today. We need more of that, and less just breaking stuff, even if it makes us feel better.
In the last couple of weeks we've seen a lot of (justified) anger, but the result has not been positive. Things got broken, but nothing has changed for the better. A small, non-profit organisation which fights for freedom and privacy on the internet against corporate interests and overbearing governments has been damaged in many ways. All to harm a man who made a semi-public donation to an admittedly odious cause. I can't think of anyone who's life has got better from this, maybe some CEOs of other companies who probably have private views worse than Brendan's, but weren't as honest about declaring them.
From my point of view, I mostly agree with the causes you describe as "progressive", some of which are especially dear to my family and friends.
ReplyDeleteBut I really can't approve of the attitudes and actions we've lately seen from some of those who would proclaim those causes. This incident has done a lot of damage to Mozilla - but it's also done a lot of damage to the image of those who support LGBT rights.
To my immense frustration, this whole affair only makes the bigots look like the reasonable ones...
@Anon - I mostly agree. It is important to remember that the "bigots" are mostly reasonable, but conservative, people. They are acting (mostly) out of a system of moral, cultural, or religious belief that they are right and doing good things. But we disagree on what that means. And don't worry, the conservative side of the spectrum are working pretty hard right now to make themselves look less reasonable ;-)
ReplyDelete@Lorenzo, I fear we disagree again. I think you'll find more diversity of opinion than you think at Mozilla, although many people are speaking quietly for various reasons.
ReplyDeleteI think we also disagree strongly about the maturity of progressive ideals - I believe respecting individuality and the rights of each human is what progressive politics is about. Absolute or black/white thinking is a problem for humans of all stripes.
The ideals of Mozilla are purely for the free internet, once it is free you can do what you like with it - express opinions as conservative or liberal as you like - that is what we fight for. As a company, the Mozilla corporation (which is only a part of Mozilla) has an obligation to respect its employees, and that means subscribing to "progressive ideas" in many ways. Please don't think that we are trying to force that view on our users.
When I referred to "bigots" earlier, I'm not actually referring to the merely conservative, to those who might be against gay marriage without any antipathy to gays.
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about the *real* bigots, the truly unpleasant "God hates fags" variety. And I don't think I'm exaggerating to say that those people look outright reasonable when compared to some of the people who have come out of the woodwork to vent their hatred of Brendan Eich.
I'm appalled to think that these people support the same cause that I do...
I have family affected by this, so I am in full agreement with your last post. I have sympathy for the other side though. Most of these people are only looking at it from a single point of view. Many people misunderstood the issue and saw it as an attack on religion. Others mistakenly thought there were fair alternatives to LGBT marriage. I think we were too harsh on Brandon, but I also think that Mozilla should probably take a side on this issue. That puts him in a hard place. It is too bad because I don't think anyone really wants this result. I think he would have made a great CEO and kept Mozilla on the right moral path despite that donation.
ReplyDelete