My understanding of the CPG is that promotion of exclusionary practices is not permitted, full stop. Thus I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that advocacy against same-sex marriage is not permitted on a Mozilla forum.
As gently and civilly as I can, I'd like to point out that it seems pretty exclusionary to forbid people who hold a certain belief -- for many, though not all, a religious belief -- from uttering it. I am curious as to how this policy about exclusionary practices works out in practice at Mozilla -- and I'm not trying to be provocative or uncivil, I really want to know. Are, say, Muslims or fundamentalist Christians --many of whom hold religious beliefs about women's rights, homosexuality and various other matters, that look exclusionary to liberal Americans -- permitted to work at Mozilla? Do they have to keep quiet about their beliefs to protect their jobs? If so, why isn't that exclusionary? On Sunday, April 6, 2014 11:09:48 AM UTC-4, Michael Connor wrote: > On Apr 6, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Gervase Markham <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > On 06/04/14 15:26, Michael Connor wrote: > > >> There's a lot of really poisonous and hateful stuff coming through. I > > >> don't think Mao/Stalin comparisons are any better than Nazi > > >> comparisons. Or concern trolling about pedophilia advocacy (which is > > >> a common false equivalency used to attack pro-LGBT activities). > > > > > > Yes, OK. I will try and do better and read more carefully. It's > > > difficult to decide what to do when you have a message which is mostly OK. > > > > I'd err on the side of caution. If people are willing to engage in a > healthy, civil manner, I'm sure they'd be willing to re-submit a post that > conforms to the CPG. If they're not willing be civil and constructive, they > should not be given a platform here. The Web has plenty of places people can > vent without restriction. > > > > >> A large number of these posts are, in my opinion, a direct violation > > >> of the requirement to keep support for exclusionary practices out of > > >> Mozilla spaces as enshrined in the Community Participation Guidelines > > >> [1], > > > > > > Can you walk me through how you reach that conclusion? > > > > * I don't believe it's ever acceptable under the CPG to advocate against LGBT > marriage rights. > > * I'd explicitly drop posts using any of the common "attack" tactics: > > ** Comparisons to pedophilia > > ** Complaining about the "gay/queer/homosexual agenda" > > ** Arguing the right of the majority to dictate to the minority > > ** Toxic comparisons like Mao/Stalin against those who believe differently > > > > > I think it would be unreasonable, if there were two messages of equal > > > "intensity", one on each side of the issue, to use the CPG as > > > justification to delete one and post the other. Is that what you are > > > asking for? > > > > My understanding of the CPG is that promotion of exclusionary practices is > not permitted, full stop. Thus I don't think it's unreasonable to expect > that advocacy against same-sex marriage is not permitted on a Mozilla forum. > > > > By the same token, if there was advocacy against those with religious beliefs > (i.e. "Brendan should have been fired for his beliefs" is a common thing I've > seen elsewhere) I would equally call those violations. > > > > As, perhaps, a key distinction: > > > > * I think it's 100% on board to defend Brendan's right to his beliefs. > > * I think it's 100% out of line to debate/defend the correctness of Brendan's > beliefs > > > > Does that distinction make sense to you? > > > > >> and I'd hardly call most of them "civil" in the context of the > > >> Forum Etiquette [2]. > > > > > > A lot of people are very angry, and I think that if we thought it was > > > important to listen to the other group of angry people: > > > > I'm 100% fine with engaging with angry people, if they are civil, and willing > to constructively engage. I'd hope that you can see the difference between > constructive questioning and emotional attacks. > > > > > "We didn't act like you'd expect Mozilla to act. We didn't move fast > > > enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry. > > > We must do better." > > > https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/ > > > > > > then it's important to listen to this one too. I think that, in the > > > circumstances, we should cut more slack than usual here. And Mozillians > > > have been engaging with the angry people in the group, and even won some > > > over; please feel free to join in. > > > > I'll note that the people getting direct responses tend to be the people who > are civil, rather than hateful. I'm happy to engage with individuals who are > willing to engage in a civil way. I've been trying to do that where I have > time. > > > > -- Mike _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
