I doubt you'd be as in favor if this if you were on the losing side of it.

People bring all sorts of opinions to the office and have done since forever. You do too. You might think you are good at hiding your opinions I'm sure, but IME most people grossly overestimate how good an actor they are especially over the long term.

I've worked with all sorts over the years.

No they didn't. They refused to work but still wanted to be paid.

So why weren't they fired then? And that doesn't sound like how I remember it being reported at the time.

I don't want any activism in the workplace regardless of who is doing it.

Last I checked, Prop 8 would also have been enforced at work.

I'm not antireligion, but I don't like religion in the workplace, even if it's just passing out pamphlets or seeking donations.

I don't like passing out of pamphlets or soliciting donations for anything at work, religious or not. I don't mind people talking about their religion or lack thereof either provided they don't insist on having conversations with people who don't want them.

I used to have a conservative Texas Catholic and bisexual atheist New Mexican co workers who shared an office. Half the time I went in there they were vociferously arguing politics or religion. The other half they were arguing with equal passion which state had the best chile. Obviously the Texan was wrong. They were fine productivity wise and actually got on pretty well. I never saw or heard wither of them arguing with anyone who wasn't interested, which means basically anyone else.

On the job?

Yep. Don't like it, then fire people, or you know let them quit. Again, people are allowed to quit being employed by you if you try and harm them. And employees on the job are allowed to inform their employer of their intention or desire to leave.

But Mozilla was not Eich's private sand pit either. As CEO he has a duty to the company and having a very large fraction of employees quitting on his watch is a bit of a problem.

It worked for bin Laden, well, for a while.

Side effects easily overcome.

"Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, confirmed Saturday he turned on Starlink for Iranians after the Islamic regime limited its online services following the launch of Israeli attacks targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. Starlink, a satellite-based constellation made by SpaceX that gives people internet, especially in places where regular internet is hard to get. The satellites fly close to Earth and help provide fast internet with little delay."
https://www.jpost.com/middle-e...

He did not give stupid orders to doctors, he asked doctors a stupid question. Similarly, he has given no orders related to Greenland, just made stupid and insulting comments.

A politically vague statement, meaningly really. However absolutely insulting and stupid. Denmark and Greenland have historically been extremely close allies. If the US desires a military base, a research facility, etc in Greenland we need do little more than ask the Greenland and Denmark governments politely. We have worked extremely closely for many decades, and as far as I know the Greenland and Denmark governments have expressed their intentions to continue doing so.

At worst this is some sort of trolling of Denmark hoping to see if there is any movement on the topic of a sale. Which other Presidents have inquired about as well. And yes, asking Denmark to sell is an extremely insulting thing to do to the people of Greenland.

Greenland and Denmark have regular discussions with the US and NATO nations all the time. And as arctic ice melts and the arctic waters become more navigable security talks with the US and NATO have only increased. That is what discussions are about.

I'm sure the diplomatic protocols used in any visits and discussions account for that. Denmark is not overly sensitive in these things, they have permitted US military bases and research facilities in Greenland for decades. Greenland is semi-autonomous and that elevates the ability to make direct contact. Denmark of course, having the final say.

Hypothetically -- and I am not saying Trump is doing this, I am just trying to illustrate my poiint -- if they US wanted a new base in Greenland I would imagine the most polite way to go about out would be to ask the Greenland government their opinion, and if they were OK with the notion then to approach Denmark for all the details and legalities involved. Basically, respect the concept of self determination and ask the locals first.

Again, being respectful may suggest talking directly to Greenland too. Not treat Greenland as some sort of "colony" that has no say in the matter.

Nonsense. There was a joint military exercise. Planned long in advance of any Trump statements, and Macron commenting on the Trump statements is incidental to this planned visit.

What actions? Real actions of fabricated spin coming from his political opposition?

Sounds like you are leaning toward the politically manufactured. Hopefully I am mistaken.

I haven't, I'm not American and it's not the same thing unless you're talking about revoking the second amendment for a specific minority because of your religion.

No one was fired over that whole slavery thing? You what? There was a whole civil war about it, or did you miss that somehow?

Anyway I shall bring whatever I choose to the office. Turns out if enough people bring it, then it matters, because a company needs employees. The workers at Mozilla did the upstanding thing, they informed their employer they would quit and gave them the option to choose. I don't really see why you object to that. Oh yeah I do know it's because Eich free speeched on something you agree with and then got massive blowback because people free speeched right back at him.

You can't have freedom of expression without people having the freedom to say you're a dickwad.

Saying freedom is not freedom from consequences is unfalsifiable gibberish that doesn't mean anything.

It means: he's free to be a dick and his employees are free to say they're going to quit. Which is exactly what happened. Don't like it? Maybe you should use your free speech to advocate removing the first amendment.

You can certainly legitimately criticize Trump. But the manner that one does can indicate TDS. Clintons, Biden, Pelosi, Trump, all are corrupt. You want to accuse Trump of being more less sophisticated, sure. Jimmy Carter was himself a rarity with respect to corruption and honesty. But the underlying reality is that the laws permits such corruption.

TDS is in part demonstrated by the inability to see reality. To see actual motives. For example that Trump was elected in both 2016 and 2024 largely due to Democrats who had economic fears. The embracing of political party taking points, perception management campaigns, that are laughable on face value. But are embraced due to manufactured demonization.

Another visible part of TDS is an inability to think of things other than in terms of Trump. Sometime the core issue underneath is more important than whatever inelegant manner Trump is handling that issue.

It's basically the other side of the rabid Trump fan coin, the rabid Trump hater. Neither able to see things except through a hyper political perspective, worshipping/demonizing the figurehead of some ideological point.

Many politicians are corrupt. Hence their typical pattern of leaving washing far wealthier than when they arrived. Trump's just less elegant, and sometime not giving a f*ck about public opinion, yet like all the rest remaining within the law. Despite hyper politicized demonization campaigns that say otherwise. He's not a demon, just someone basically unfit for the job in various ways, yet he has the job. And to be fair, he did a better job than Biden. Which is a very low bar in terms of corruption and competence. And that is a very very old perspective of Biden, nothing to do with his medical issues of recent years.

So, he had to be ousted on the basis of his political speech?

He was not ousted. He fucked up so hard that to stay would be more damaging than to leave. Ad CEO, his duty was to quit. That's entirely on him.

Think about what you would say if a CEO was ousted for taking a stance you agree with.

He wasn't ousted. He made his own position untenable.

You and he both have the right to speak freely in your personal lives regardless of your professional lives.

Indeed and his employees had the right to say "I won't work for that guy".

You can't be fired for your personal political preferences or speech. That's the damn law,

He wasn't fired and California is an at will state. You can be fired for speech.

He didn't wish ill on anyone.

He donated money to strip rights from one group of people. Waffle all you like, his employees felt that was harming them and they are entitled to refuse to associate with him. It is their absolute right to do so.

You dismiss the fact that Obama and Hillary both supported it at that point in time, but I'm mentioning it to show how mainstream the opinion was.

It was once mainstream opinion that black people weren't actually people and so it was OK to keep them as slaves. That did not make that less harmful. Majority opinion that oppression is OK does not make it less oppressive.

Eich never did anything of the sort. He made a small contribution privately, in his own time.

So? He does not magically become another person at work. People are allowed to not work with him. Slavery has been outlawed in case you did not notice.

But that's not American,

I thought free speech was something Americans believed in? You seem awfully against some people saying "I ain't gonna work for that guy". They have an absolute right to say that.

We're all entitled to have our own beliefs, vote how we want, be religious if we want, do and say what we want.

We are. And we are also all entitled to associate with whomsoever we wish. That includes not associating with people who pay money to strip rights from a group of people.

You can't have it both ways where Eich has the right to be an asshole but no one has a right to tell him to go to hell.

When it comes to the workplace, it's time to set your personal views and activities aside

You can't make me or the employees of Mozilla do that. It's your opinion and I have the right to disagree.

When you're at work, it's the company's time, not yours. That's why you're being paid.

I am no slave, all my time is mine. I can choose to spend it how I will. If I wish to give some to you for money, I can. And I can also decide that you are someone I don't wish to work for and refuse both the money and to give you my labour.

And you have to suck it up.

That's a nice arrangement that OpenAI wants. "Invest in us when we're small and fund our development... and then keep all the money once we hit it big." You mean to tell me that Microsoft wants a return on their very large and very high risk investment?!

The way you phrase that makes it sound like he hired thugs to go out and kneecap people.

They're called "the police" and if you tried to avail yourself of the rights of marriage persistently enough, it would end in arrest most likely.

He made a small donation to support proposition 8 which opposed same sex marriage.

Yes, indeed, he paid money to try and harm his employees.

At the time, only 52% of CA voters supported it, so by your POV, half of California wanted to "cause harm" to those same people.

Yes 48% of California did indeed want to strip rights, i.e. cause harm, to gay people. Why does this surprise you?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton also opposed same sex marriage at that time

I can't be arsed to verify if this is true, but... so? Does that somehow justify the stance?

Yet here in the tech world, people just can't accept that opposing views exist

Seems you don't like the view of his employees that they don't want to associate with someone who wishes them harm. Maybe try and be more accepting of others?

when it comes to politics

Yeah politics has real stakes. If you wanna be that weird cowboy hatted buy holding up a sign saying how god dislikes gay people, go nuts. If you try and get the force of law and so the police to back your opinions on how gay people should be stripped of right, then yes people have a right to not like you because of that.

It's also not like he left willingly.

He fucked up so hard he had to leave. If he didn't try and strip rights from his employees then they wouldn't have decided to go.

People in tech need to control their egos and separate people's politics from their technical contributions.

Why? Why should I be forced to work with someone who not just wishes me or my friends ill but acts on that? I only have one life and I'd rather spend it with people who are worth the time.

and they fired him because they didn't like the way he voted

He made his own position untenable by paying money to hurt his own employees and families.
They didn't want to work for him as is their absolute right, because until recently America was a free country. But turns out if as CEO you are about to cause a mass exodus of employees, you've fucked up and he did the only thing left available and quit to limit the damage.

He fucked up. He made his own position untenable. The blame rests entirely on his shoulders.

The sad state of affairs is that arseholes like him want to use the force of law to harm people who are just trying to live their lives quietly, and he's prepared to put money behind that. I can't imagine why a bunch of people recruited to work at a non profit with lofty goals don't love their paycheck so much they're prepared to work for a CEO who not just wishes them harm but is prepared to pay to get it.

It's also a pretty crap (and unstable) company if interns can cry enough to get the CEO out.

It's a pretty crap company if all employees are required to wear a cheese on their head. That has about as much relevance as your statement to Mozilla. We can keep going all day with daft what-ifs if you like.

Back in te real world, it was a lot of the actual full time employees. I'm not really sure why people are shocked, I say shocked and appalled that people working at a nonprofit with a mission to make the world a better place are less focused on their paycheck than employees at the craziest finance companies.

Mozilla however has been a dumpster fire since they ousted Brendan Eich

They didn't oust Brendan Eich. Brendan Eich stepped on his own dick and ousted himself.

Eich paid money to cause harm to some of the employees of Mozilla, and the family and friends of some of the employees of Mozilla. That is his right. Funnily enough a lot of people don't like working for a boss who actively tries to harm them. But it's Eich's right to try and harm people who work for him.

It's also the right of the employees to say "fuck this shit I'm not working for that asshole".

Apparently enough of the employees did that that it would have caused very serious harm to Mozilla if they all left. Eich is the CEO, which means his duty is to the company and you're a pretty crap CEO if you cause all of your best employees to leave.

He free speecified money to hurt people, and those people free speecified a promise to not work for him. The only person at fault here is Eich. It was a problem entirely of his own making.

LOL. You realize that this is the classic boomer behavior? Trying to relive their radical 60s youth. It's pretty much why we have all these manufactured outrages and faux protests. Whose the next gray haired currently unknown folk singer to roll out onto the protest stage?

It's the youth that put Trump into power, not the Boomers. Trump gained around 4% with Boomers, that's in pissed off about economy territory. Trump gained about 36% among the youth, that's ideological support. A rejection of 1960s Boomerism.