Mozilla just can't catch a break(dropbox.com)
dropbox.com
Mozilla just can't catch a break
https://www.dropbox.com/s/b70uugc2ydycvyd/_20140405_131618.JPG
7 comments
>> Proposition 8 passed. A majority of people were in favor of it.
This is debatable; there was a lot of propaganda from the prop8 supporters that confused people. One co-worker thought prop8 meant schools would actively teach her child about homosexuality. Any sexuality(hetero or homo) teaching in school should be first decided by the parent, ihmo. At least when I was growing up, parents had to sign a waiver/consent paper before the high-school kids were sent to the birds-and-bees classes.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/03/opinion/la-oe-fleish...
>> The Yes on 8 campaign targeted parents in its TV ads. "Mom! Guess what I learned in school today!" were the cheery-frightening first words of the supporters' most-broadcast ad. They emerged from the mouth of a young girl who had supposedly just learned that she could marry a female when she grew up.
This is debatable; there was a lot of propaganda from the prop8 supporters that confused people. One co-worker thought prop8 meant schools would actively teach her child about homosexuality. Any sexuality(hetero or homo) teaching in school should be first decided by the parent, ihmo. At least when I was growing up, parents had to sign a waiver/consent paper before the high-school kids were sent to the birds-and-bees classes.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/03/opinion/la-oe-fleish...
>> The Yes on 8 campaign targeted parents in its TV ads. "Mom! Guess what I learned in school today!" were the cheery-frightening first words of the supporters' most-broadcast ad. They emerged from the mouth of a young girl who had supposedly just learned that she could marry a female when she grew up.
A majority of a certain population of people support something abhorrent. I guess that makes it okay.
Guess what, yes, your actions in private/public life have an effect on your employability and the success of your organization.
Guess what, yes, your actions in private/public life have an effect on your employability and the success of your organization.
So you make an assumption and draw conclusions from it? Really?
If power is sufficient it can be turned against or for, actions - oh, I never guessed it!
If power is sufficient it can be turned against or for, actions - oh, I never guessed it!
Brendan Eich is a human/civil rights denier. Now that is abhorrent.
"It makes me very uneasy."
Oh no, I guess you're just going to have to be a decent human being from now on. Sorry.
"It makes me very uneasy."
Oh no, I guess you're just going to have to be a decent human being from now on. Sorry.
I don't want to live in a society where people with bigoted and regressive views are merely considered as a difference of opinion. Human rights are absolute.
EDIT: So many downvotes, wow.
EDIT: So many downvotes, wow.
Eich is a huge, HUGE proponent of the open web and helped co-found Mozilla. He created Javascript. He is a huge reason the web is so open and browser technologies made all of our lives better. He is also part of the reason Mozilla is so inclusive.
Everything is a balance. His contributions to Mozilla, the open web, technology, fairness and many other things outweighs his one misstep by far. And if that is not possible then we live in a black or white, totalitarian mindset state. People can be wrong and it shouldn't outweigh everything right they have done. Especially since this happens in the midst of major social change, there will be some waves.
Everything is a balance. His contributions to Mozilla, the open web, technology, fairness and many other things outweighs his one misstep by far. And if that is not possible then we live in a black or white, totalitarian mindset state. People can be wrong and it shouldn't outweigh everything right they have done. Especially since this happens in the midst of major social change, there will be some waves.
I was referring to the GP's sweeping "society" comment. State-sanctioned discrimination is not a difference of opinion issue. I don't care if people genuinely believe that gay people are immoral so long as their belief is not being used to legitimately undermine the human rights of a whole group of people with no rational justification other than fear and prejudice. I don't like that society and don't want to be part of it - thankfully I'm not, New Zealand legalised gay marriage and has none of the stupid religious conservatism in our politics that the USA has.
Eich, in this wider societal context, means very little.
Eich, in this wider societal context, means very little.
Actually, I would argue that actively campaigning for somebody be fired from their job for political views is much more bigoted, since you would surely have to be concretely convinced of the superiority of your own beliefs to think that means justifies the ends:
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
So it's either your way or the highway? For thousands of years, his opinion was considered the de facto. Are people now suddenly bigoted hate mongers for supporting the same view that President Obama supported just a few years ago?
So was slavery, what's your point? State sanctioned discrimination is not just a difference of opinion issue, to reduce it to that is patronising and insulting in the extreme to the people being discriminated.
You're deliberately missing his point.
None of this stuff happened until Dear Leader changed his position. Now, all of a sudden, being opposed to gay marriage is the Worst Thing Ever.
None of this stuff happened until Dear Leader changed his position. Now, all of a sudden, being opposed to gay marriage is the Worst Thing Ever.
Dear leader? Oh you're one of them. Figures.
If you're naive enough to think that people only started caring about gay rights because some leader of a country where you have to prove you go to church to get elected finally started espousing reason, then you're more ridiculously naive than your posts suggest.
If you're naive enough to think that people only started caring about gay rights because some leader of a country where you have to prove you go to church to get elected finally started espousing reason, then you're more ridiculously naive than your posts suggest.
Marriage is a sociopolitical construct, not a human right.
List of rulings that contradict you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_United_States#M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_United_States#M...
What about the human right to hold your own beliefs? Are you saying I am no longer allowed to believe what I want, I have to believe what you tell me is right?
[deleted]
Nobody is saying that. But if you for example believe that slavery is right because Bible says so, well, we have a problem here, don't you think?
Actually I'm starting to wonder about the whole idea that you can't fire someone based on their religious beliefs (at least I understand this is the law in the US).
What if I discover one of my employees donated to a political group that is trying to bring back slavery. I definitely wouldn't want someone like that working for me. But I can't let them go because their religious book says slavery is fine and their religious views are protected?
Crazy world.
Actually I'm starting to wonder about the whole idea that you can't fire someone based on their religious beliefs (at least I understand this is the law in the US).
What if I discover one of my employees donated to a political group that is trying to bring back slavery. I definitely wouldn't want someone like that working for me. But I can't let them go because their religious book says slavery is fine and their religious views are protected?
Crazy world.
"So many downvotes, wow."
Is it really surprising considering that a lot of the people here are white racist sexist homophobic males with barely any social skills who laugh at how much they can relate to the "forever alone" meme?
You know, after spending enough time reading HN comments I started thinking tech attracts the worst kind of people. Only recently I realized it's simply not true -- actually I'm kind of happy nobody compared homosexuality to bestialism or pedophillia (well, I haven't really read all the comments on this topic, but I am going to give HN the benefit of the doubt).
It's just that the world is a pretty awful place -- unless you are the "default human being" (white, hetero, male). But it is getting better (very, very slowly).
I'm just happy that there are people like you (and this whole Eich episode proved there's a lot of such people) who make being in the tech industry (and generally being around other human beings) quite bearable.
Is it really surprising considering that a lot of the people here are white racist sexist homophobic males with barely any social skills who laugh at how much they can relate to the "forever alone" meme?
You know, after spending enough time reading HN comments I started thinking tech attracts the worst kind of people. Only recently I realized it's simply not true -- actually I'm kind of happy nobody compared homosexuality to bestialism or pedophillia (well, I haven't really read all the comments on this topic, but I am going to give HN the benefit of the doubt).
It's just that the world is a pretty awful place -- unless you are the "default human being" (white, hetero, male). But it is getting better (very, very slowly).
I'm just happy that there are people like you (and this whole Eich episode proved there's a lot of such people) who make being in the tech industry (and generally being around other human beings) quite bearable.
Just because the majority of people agree with his stance, doesn't mean anything. What, did you think this was some kind of democracy? ;)
The same Democracy that had Africans in chains on plantations. When the future looks back what side will Brendan Eich be on?
This was the fairly inevitable conclusion of forcing him to quit. Nobody has come out of this looking good.
I agree. The whole episode has been a disaster for Mozilla's mission.
They're trolling, right? this is a joke, right?
Please tell me this is a joke.
Edit:
There's nothing on the page in the image: http://www.catholicvote.org/?s=firefox&submit=%C2%A0
So i assume this is indeed just a joke.
Please tell me this is a joke.
Edit:
There's nothing on the page in the image: http://www.catholicvote.org/?s=firefox&submit=%C2%A0
So i assume this is indeed just a joke.
Not a joke. See https://twitter.com/CatholicVote/status/452108584126410752.
They should be free to speak their mind as the opposition, correct?
They should be free to speak their mind as the opposition, correct?
No no, it's already been clearly established in these threads. The pro-gay-marriage side is the only side that gets to speak their minds, because they are the side that is right.
That's how freedom of speech works, after all. Only the person who is right gets it.
That's how freedom of speech works, after all. Only the person who is right gets it.
You are free to say what you want, and free to deal with the repercussions. Everything can be framed as having two sides, but society at a certain point decides there isn't two sides.
The "pro-interracial-marriage" side is the only side that gets to speak its mind these days, because they are the side that is right. Try coming out as against interracial marriage and you will be run out of your company on a rail, as you should be, rinse and repeat for gay marriage.
The "pro-interracial-marriage" side is the only side that gets to speak its mind these days, because they are the side that is right. Try coming out as against interracial marriage and you will be run out of your company on a rail, as you should be, rinse and repeat for gay marriage.
They aren't really the side that is right, they are just the side that has 99% of people. Gay marriage is contentious because it's practically an even split right now.
61% of young Republican leaning Americans (18-29) support marriage equality. The issue is settled, the trajectory is clear, it is just a few years until it will all be shaken out and boring and stats about people being against gay marriage will be treated with awe and shock.
In 1986, only around 30% of Americans "approved" of interracial relationships -- now about that number have a family member IN an interracial relationship. Things move faster now, and in just a few years, the idea of being against same-sex marriage will seem just as insane about being against interracial marriage.
In 1986, only around 30% of Americans "approved" of interracial relationships -- now about that number have a family member IN an interracial relationship. Things move faster now, and in just a few years, the idea of being against same-sex marriage will seem just as insane about being against interracial marriage.
Freedom of speech goes both ways...
I probably shouldn't even bring this up. This whole thread will be knocked off the front-page shortly anyway... but I just had a heated debate with a coworker that's an Eich-supporter and found his logic disturbing and ethically broken when it expanded to views on racism, sexism, homophobia. But for all those people who support Eich and keep saying freedom-of-speech goes both ways even for "unpopular opinions":
How would you define Hate Speech. Do you think it's okay? Do you think Google is right for not allowing Hate Speech on youtube?
I'm only asking because I want to know if these Eich-supporters have a limit somewhere; where speech becomes harmful - from just expressing yourself to inflicting a tangible negative effect on others who do not wish it. While I'm not accusing Eich of hate speech, I believe his donation to an effort to make a law which forces his belief on others - something that has nothing to do with how he lives his own life - is similar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
>>In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
Am I crazy for thinking that prop8 disparages the love between two men or women that want to get married? Isn't the core of prop8 based on people who cannot accept the LGBT community and want to keep marriage for themselves? Shouldn't society squash this kind of thing out of law?
How would you define Hate Speech. Do you think it's okay? Do you think Google is right for not allowing Hate Speech on youtube?
I'm only asking because I want to know if these Eich-supporters have a limit somewhere; where speech becomes harmful - from just expressing yourself to inflicting a tangible negative effect on others who do not wish it. While I'm not accusing Eich of hate speech, I believe his donation to an effort to make a law which forces his belief on others - something that has nothing to do with how he lives his own life - is similar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
>>In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
Am I crazy for thinking that prop8 disparages the love between two men or women that want to get married? Isn't the core of prop8 based on people who cannot accept the LGBT community and want to keep marriage for themselves? Shouldn't society squash this kind of thing out of law?
You'll note in that wiki article you linked, the Supreme Court has found hate speech restrictions to be unconstitutional.
There's also the case where the ACLU defended the right of neo-nazis to march in a town with a heavy Jewish population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#...
Hate speech is often despicable, but Freedom Of Speech has traditionally been taken very, very, VERY seriously in the US.
Personally, I feel it's a dangerous mistake to start policing hate speech, and I don't want to see it happen. I think the freedom to express whatever position you want on an issue, no matter how reprehensible, is crucial to the ideals of the nation.
If that means fringe groups say awful things, so be it. For me that's infinitely better than the alternative.
There's also the case where the ACLU defended the right of neo-nazis to march in a town with a heavy Jewish population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#...
Hate speech is often despicable, but Freedom Of Speech has traditionally been taken very, very, VERY seriously in the US.
Personally, I feel it's a dangerous mistake to start policing hate speech, and I don't want to see it happen. I think the freedom to express whatever position you want on an issue, no matter how reprehensible, is crucial to the ideals of the nation.
If that means fringe groups say awful things, so be it. For me that's infinitely better than the alternative.
[deleted]
This.
>Isn't the core of prop8 based on people who cannot accept
>the LGBT community and want to keep marriage for
>themselves?
Some people might feel that way, but there are arguments against gay marriage that have nothing to do with this. Some people feel gay marriage reduces freedom, some people are against the idea of government involvement in marriage, period (which is actually what I suspect Eich's view is), and some gay people are against gay marriage.
>Shouldn't society squash this kind of thing out of law?
Not just no, but hell no.
Some people might feel that way, but there are arguments against gay marriage that have nothing to do with this. Some people feel gay marriage reduces freedom, some people are against the idea of government involvement in marriage, period (which is actually what I suspect Eich's view is), and some gay people are against gay marriage.
>Shouldn't society squash this kind of thing out of law?
Not just no, but hell no.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Hate speech is actually often? sometimes? protected in the USA.
Am I crazy for thinking that prop8 disparages the love between two men or women that want to get married?
Maybe? California still gave all the legal rights and benefits of marriage to gay couples, it was just called something besides marriage. The only right Prop 8 took away was to the word "marriage".
Maybe? California still gave all the legal rights and benefits of marriage to gay couples, it was just called something besides marriage. The only right Prop 8 took away was to the word "marriage".
Thankfully, they can switch to a "straight browser". Something like Google Chrome or Apple Safari. Oh, wait, both of them donated money to defeat Prop 8 because they both favor gay marriage. Google even has a whole page about it: Legalise Love: LGBT Rights Are Human Rights: http://www.google.com/diversity/legalise-love.html Maybe they could switch back to Microsoft Internet Explorer. Oh, wait, Microsoft was lobbying for gay marriage to be legalized in Washington state back in 2012 and has included gay marriage in their advertising.
Sorry, folks. All the major browsers are gay.
Sorry, folks. All the major browsers are gay.
[deleted](1)
That situation around B. Eich harmed LGBT group in third-world countries.
For example, in Russia people is afraid about gay rights. They think if gays will have equial rights with straights, they starts to hunt anybody who are not pro-gay. And that situation with B. Eich proofs that.
Russia is a 3rd world country now? Putting away the pedantic definition of 1st-2nd-3rd world, even by the 'modern' conniption, Russia isn't a developing economy.
This is why, despite supporting gay marriage, I think it is abhorrent that Brendan Eich was effectively forced to resign. He donated privately to a campaign that was supported by a majority of people, but somehow that makes it ok to destroy his career because we don't agree with his stance. I don't particularly want to inhabit a society where that is the norm. It makes me very uneasy.