Women resign everyday "because they can't manage effectively" when, if fact, it's harassment.

You could justify any discrimination with "he quit, that was his choice". Today the discrimination is against someone who held a political opinion some day in his past. Or should I say "in his/her/its/Apachehelicopter" past as to not assume their gender and not condemn my future ability to be CEO?

He is not a woman and he is not a part of an historically discriminated against group. You're making a huge false equivalence that ignores one simple thing: he resigned BECAUSE he was found to support discriminatory policies. If the problem is discrimination then he was part of the problem. Women who resigned because they are harassed are victims of discrimination. Men who resign because they SUPPORT discrimination are not in the same bag.

Being discreminated against for being a supporter of discrimination is not "wrong", same as it isn't ethically wrong to give the death penalty to murderers. The argument against the death penalty is we make too many mistakes, not that it's somehow wrong to sentence people to the death when they are responsible for murder.

The crime begets the punishment. Women have committed no crime, but Eich was clearly guilty.

>historically discriminated against group

So when does reparations end? Is there some objective condition that can be met where we can all agree to stop trying to prop certain groups up while discouraging others?

I personally don't think that's possible. We would spend the rest of time trying to correct perceived wrongs done to categories of people for hundreds of years. It's far more sane to simply agree to NOT discriminate based on race/gender/creed/religion/politics OR say that it is fair play to do so.

What I'm trying to say is that I agree with you. Eich didn't, which is why I can't defend him. He agreed with discrimination.

They end when we have full equality.

Wait, you're yelling "huge false equivalence" and then compare supporting what was a popular political viewpoint (Even Obama and the majority of California voters supported it back when Eich made the donation) to being as objectively wrong as murder?

What kind of self-reinforcing social bubble have you created that makes you think those two are equivalent? You say "crime" and "was clearly guilty" for actions that are explicitly protected under the law. Do you know what crime is?

Discriminating against a group of people is objectively wrong, unless you disagree with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

> he resigned BECAUSE he was found to support discriminatory policies

This is false. He resigned because he was a target of personal destruction campaign, and received no support from people who he had to work with/for. The was attacked by political activists and his organization threw him under the bus.

> Women who resigned because they are harassed are victims of discrimination

He was harassed plenty. Of course, not the same harassment - not of sexual kind - but it didn't make his environment less hostile, wasn't less related to work performance or wasn't less personally painful and hurtful. The only difference is that you think it's OK to harass him - because he deserved it for committing the thoughtcrime.

> The crime begets the punishment.

Here we get to the point. Disagreeing with the orthodoxy is the crime, and be happy your punishment is only losing your job and not the room 101. We get it, believe me.

He didn't commit thoughtcrime. He supported discrimination against a group of people, which is a violation of their Human Right to be treated equally.

Therefore he supported the violation of human rights. People didn't like it, and he had to resign because he couldn't work anymore. That's it.

If you don't think violation of Human Rights and/or supporting it is a problem you can get behind Eich all you want.

> Or should I say "in his/her/its/Apachehelicopter" past

You may think that's funny, but it does a disservice to your argument.

Pay attention: I said "... under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader." (https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2014/04/faq-on-ceo-resignatio...).

I did not say "the staff doesn't respect me". That would have been a lie.

Why don't you comment on things that you know about directly, or even just on reliable testimony?

It's called reading between the lines. "I cannot be an effective leader" is pretty vague and given your prior support which was then publicised by Mozilla staff, it's pretty easy to imagine that they did not respect you.

First you misquote me and add your own words against me not justified by facts in evidence. Now you say it is just "reading between the lines."

Reading between your lines, I see malice and mendacity. Have you a better excuse?

I remember a blog post by @tofumatt, flip-flopping from pro- before to con- after I left. That is neither "staff" (plural) nor "Basically: the staff didn't respect him" evidence. It's a post from one person, who was not inside the room with C-level and board members, which assumed the worst: that I couldn't figure out how to lie my way through the crisis, so clearly didn't merit CEO. I can produce multiple others who supported me all the way from appointment to well past exit, including @christi3k and @lsblakk.

But really, what's your point? You weren't even at Mozilla, whether on the outside of the C-suite or on the inside. To assert "Basically, ..." as you did stinks of malice and mendacity. There's a five letter word for someone who assumes the worst about out-group members in advance of facts, who finds it "pretty easy to imagine" the worst of adversaries. It starts with "B" and ends with "T".