From the poster who suggested the use of the term "thought police":
> "The term 'thought-police' does not necessarily have a government connotation."
If it is not government, then the party under discussion therefore must be a private individual or organization. I don't understand how this is anything like the commonly accepted understanding of "thought police". It is simply one private party critiquing the behavior (in this case, a monetary donation to support certain legislation) of another private party.
It is an inherent double standard.
Also: if Eich, rather than fund legislation which discriminates against gays, funded legislation that discriminated against, for example, black people, would you be confident that black people who worked for Mozilla would be working in a fair environment? Would another private organization, like OKCupid, be justified in questioning such an individual?
If this is to be branded the "thought police" then I worry about freedom of expression and our cultural mores, in general.
Eich is being critiqued right now by more than just one private party. That's why I was confused with your post.
Also, "critique" is a rather kind way of putting it. It's more like doing everything possible to take his job away.
And that's the real problem. Trying to sabotage someone's career over a difference of political opinion is not a mature or effective way to advance your message. How would you like it if all your coworkers publicly petitioned for you to quit because it was discovered you were pro-choice (hypothetically)? There are people who think abortion is plain old murder. People like that will think a pro-choice stance is absolutely unacceptable, and they might even think an example should be made of anybody who supports such legislature.
Why does the quantity of private parties matter? He publicly donated money. I don't understand why you believe he is immune to criticism.
Do you understand that he is CEO of a large company? Do you understand that LGBT individuals and their allies work for this company? Including its board of directors. Do you understand that they have already publicly spoken about the real consequences his appointment to CEO has on them?
Would I like it if people petitioned for me to quit? No. I can't imagine Eich is too pleased with this backlash. But that doesn't make LGBT individuals wrong in speaking out against promoting bigoted legislation. If you think "hurt feelings" is a good defense for Eich, how do you think his LGBT constituency feels? He materially invested in anti-gay legislation. These people spoke out against it.
I am just so floored by this type of reasoning you promote.
And "trying to sabotage someone's career" is like Dan Brown getting a bad book review. Like Brown, Eich has already made a successful career out of technology; nothing they say is going to limit his success in the field. It is an absolute fact that there are those of his constituency who feel specifically discriminated against. How is it not within their right (or other peoples' rights) to speak out publicly about this?
How is this even close to thought crime? It is a matter of private citizens/organizations; he contributed materially to anti-gay legislation (not simple thoughts); there is no governing body capable of actually punishing him.
Again, I am floored by the reasoning being promoted here.
