Oh, I agree fully. Please don't mistake effect for cause here. Given a mob-minded populace, it's best to select leaders with a more safe, socially-minded approach to leadership.
What I'm saying is that, it's unfortunate we accept and glorify the mob-mindedness in the first place. The specifics of this case should have played out exactly as they should have. All I'm saying is that, if people were more thick-skinned form the get-go, then the hard decisions played out by the Eich incident wouldn't necessarily had to have taken place.
I'd like to understand what you mean by "mob". Do you people individual choices about who to work for and volunteer for being influenced by what they feel about the political views of the leaders of organisations?
Are you saying that people who are in group that has been oppressed in recent history and people may feel still is oppressed or unequal who feel that Eich was trying to deny them equal rights (in society) should be "more thick skinned"and carry on working for his organisation rather than speak their mind.
I am aware that there is a certain spin to the above paragraph but saying that victims (at least in the recent past) should be "more thick skinned" sounds pretty offensive from a certain viewpoint.
Nope. I'm referring to something different in kind. I think it's fully okay for rational individuals, separate from emotion, to come to the conclusion that working with a specific person or business doesn't align with their long term interests in how they feel a society should be run.
I believe, however, what was on display during the Eich incident was nothing of the sort. It was a direct example of mob mentality[1], which is a very distinct mode of thought that operates more off of emotion, peer judgment, and myopia than rational thought around what we should consider unjust and punishable if the case were brought to, say, a formal trial.
The concept is kind of a fundamental underpinning in modern judicial systems. I personally think that "mob" mentality is on the rise given our current configuration of clickshare happy, shallow media outlets, but this is a harder thesis to defend and beyond the scope of this comment.
I think that perspective is needlessly individualistic. You can take a view that something isn't in someone else's best interests. The bigger issue with Mozilla is that people feel it represents them, and it does in its lobbying for the the open web. If it is led and represented by someone who you feel[0] is opposed to your very being it is hard to imagine it representing you and easy to see how you could oppose the appointment.
[0] Some may see opposition to gay marriage as opposition to homosexuality. In some cases this is probably the case in others it may not be.
What I'm saying is that, it's unfortunate we accept and glorify the mob-mindedness in the first place. The specifics of this case should have played out exactly as they should have. All I'm saying is that, if people were more thick-skinned form the get-go, then the hard decisions played out by the Eich incident wouldn't necessarily had to have taken place.