Mozilla is not Chik-Fil-A(benmoskowitz.com)
benmoskowitz.com
Mozilla is not Chik-Fil-A
http://www.benmoskowitz.com/?p=971
64 comments
He basically echoes all the points I tried to make, and got hounded for making. But I think folks on the internet are just really fond of a good lynching once and a while. It's a consistent pattern.
This scandal was really weird from a HN commenter's perspective. For me it was the first time I experienced "wild veering" of comments, where I would write a comment that was downvoted multiple times within a few minutes and then later see it climb to thirty or so positive karma.
I was very disappointed to watch in real time as this post was moderated off the HN front page and into oblivion. It happened at 8:46 PM PDT on April 3.
Once it reached #24 on the first page, even as it was gaining points and comments, this post quickly fell several pages.
Yes, we had a few posts on this subject already hit the main page, with one garnering over 900 comments. But especially when we're dealing with an issue with such obvious free speech implications, insightful articles like these should be allowed to run their natural course on HN.
Once it reached #24 on the first page, even as it was gaining points and comments, this post quickly fell several pages.
Yes, we had a few posts on this subject already hit the main page, with one garnering over 900 comments. But especially when we're dealing with an issue with such obvious free speech implications, insightful articles like these should be allowed to run their natural course on HN.
Being against gay marriage is not free speech, it's plain and simple hate, don't try to flip the table like that.
This faux outrage over one man's views, which were hardly extremist given they were shared by 7 million Californians in a vote, has robbed Mozilla of its co-founder. Who the hell is Hampton Catlin to call a boycott? I doubt anyone had even heard of him or his software company.
Message to Hampton Catlin and Michael Lintorn Catlin: if you want to make a brave stand for gay rights, why don't you start protesting outside a mosque or an embassy where under Islam the penalty for simply being gay is DEATH ?
[1] Goodbye, Firefox Marketplace: http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/24/goodbye_firefox_m...
[2] Five Reasons Eich Should Step Down: http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/28/five-reasons-eich...
[3] A Sad Victory: http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/04/03/a-sad-victory/
Message to Hampton Catlin and Michael Lintorn Catlin: if you want to make a brave stand for gay rights, why don't you start protesting outside a mosque or an embassy where under Islam the penalty for simply being gay is DEATH ?
[1] Goodbye, Firefox Marketplace: http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/24/goodbye_firefox_m...
[2] Five Reasons Eich Should Step Down: http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/28/five-reasons-eich...
[3] A Sad Victory: http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/04/03/a-sad-victory/
Most of the people I know who are against gay marriage (yes, I know some such people) aren't against gay people being considered married by the state. Civil unions, and most other forms of marriage ceremony, are A-OK with them.
People against gay marriage are, as far as I'm aware, really just against gay people being considered married by the (Christian) church, because--in their opinion--Christianity has a specific definition of "marriage", and gay marriage doesn't qualify.
It seems to just be a bunch of people talking past one-another. Each group sees their definition of "marriage" ("marriage" as in "legally considered together", or "marriage" as in "accepted as a couple by your local congregation") as the only one that actually matters, and so obviously that's the one their opponents are arguing about as well.
People against gay marriage are, as far as I'm aware, really just against gay people being considered married by the (Christian) church, because--in their opinion--Christianity has a specific definition of "marriage", and gay marriage doesn't qualify.
It seems to just be a bunch of people talking past one-another. Each group sees their definition of "marriage" ("marriage" as in "legally considered together", or "marriage" as in "accepted as a couple by your local congregation") as the only one that actually matters, and so obviously that's the one their opponents are arguing about as well.
Was Prop 8 about the Christian definition of marriage? It wasn't, it was about the LEGAL government regulated institution of marriage. Marriages by the way pre-date Christianity.
It isn't two groups talking past each other, it is one group trying to get their religious values instituted as government regulations.
Letting a same sex couple get marriage by a judge, in a courthouse doesn't do anything to harm the internal religious definition of marriage... it is the government regulated one.
I am all for banning marriage as a government institution and only having civil unions. Hell don't even call them civil unions, call them flipflapadingdongs if you want, but as long as they are done by government they must be equal, playing name games is BS.
It isn't two groups talking past each other, it is one group trying to get their religious values instituted as government regulations.
Letting a same sex couple get marriage by a judge, in a courthouse doesn't do anything to harm the internal religious definition of marriage... it is the government regulated one.
I am all for banning marriage as a government institution and only having civil unions. Hell don't even call them civil unions, call them flipflapadingdongs if you want, but as long as they are done by government they must be equal, playing name games is BS.
Donating and voting for prop 8, and therefore not in favor of redefining their "institution of marriage" (ignorant as that may be on their part) is not plain and simple hate, it's clear that you didn't even bother to read the blog post if you're willing to trivialize this issue like that. Even if you don't respect Brendan's beliefs, beliefs that I certainly don't respect, please stop trying to turn this into a black and white, "tolerant" vs "bigot" issue.
At some point, all sorts of horrible "opinions" where just that -- opinions. Society shifts and those opinions become unacceptable and revolting. The political landscape has shifted a lot in 6 years, and being against marriage equality is rapidly becoming akin to being a racist or sexist, based on broad public opinion.
I look at it from a practicality standpoint: abolishing the state-recognized marriage institution and just leaving religions to squabble amongst each other while moving everyone to civil partnerships for the benefits is impractical. So marriage is going to have to be redefined, whether they like it or not.
Plain and simple "hate"?
Have you considered the idea that they are trying to defend what they consider a social institution as important -to them- as "property" is for you? Or "money"?
Because it may be so and not hate.
Because it may be so and not hate.
I would like to begin by stating that I, personally, support gay marriage - if the government is willing to offer tax benefits, next-of-kin status, etc. to married and common-law couples based on committed, long-term relationships, it seems hypocritical, cruel, and unfair to deny those same rights to homosexual couples with similar relationships.
That said, I think it is ridiculous that this is a scandal, and worse that it ended with Brendan Eich being forced out of his job. He made a really quite modest personal political donation on one side of an issue the state of California had deemed contentious enough to hold a referendum. It seems unfair that backing the wrong side in that referendum apparently disqualifies half of California from being Mozilla CEO. Whether you agree with his views or not (and I and most of the Internet seem not to), they have nothing to do with building an accessible Internet for everyone, and as long as those views don't affect his managerial choices, I don't see how they're relevant to his job (Mozilla HR could answer the question about professionalism, but I don't think the rest of us have the necessary data).
That said, I think it is ridiculous that this is a scandal, and worse that it ended with Brendan Eich being forced out of his job. He made a really quite modest personal political donation on one side of an issue the state of California had deemed contentious enough to hold a referendum. It seems unfair that backing the wrong side in that referendum apparently disqualifies half of California from being Mozilla CEO. Whether you agree with his views or not (and I and most of the Internet seem not to), they have nothing to do with building an accessible Internet for everyone, and as long as those views don't affect his managerial choices, I don't see how they're relevant to his job (Mozilla HR could answer the question about professionalism, but I don't think the rest of us have the necessary data).
I'm openly gay - I came out at 15.
I agree with you, I don't think this is a scandal, its effectively mob/victors justice - why should there be social or employment consequences for expressing profoundly held religious beliefs - in my mind this is just as bad as when employers fire employees for being gay.
Now personally, I'm a about as religious as a door stop and honestly in my opinion most of the arguments against gay marriage either seem to boil down to "I think its icky" or "My deity tells me its bad", that said, I think anyone ought to be welcome to hold opinions contrary to mine, and speak them in the public square without fear of reprisal - so long as they are not violating the law, or actively discriminating personally.
I agree with you, I don't think this is a scandal, its effectively mob/victors justice - why should there be social or employment consequences for expressing profoundly held religious beliefs - in my mind this is just as bad as when employers fire employees for being gay.
Now personally, I'm a about as religious as a door stop and honestly in my opinion most of the arguments against gay marriage either seem to boil down to "I think its icky" or "My deity tells me its bad", that said, I think anyone ought to be welcome to hold opinions contrary to mine, and speak them in the public square without fear of reprisal - so long as they are not violating the law, or actively discriminating personally.
With respect, isn't the process funding a law to make gay marriage illegal actively discriminating against said same people? It seems fair, I think, to call someone out for something like that. What if his religion called for outlawing marriage between some other group of consenting adults? Perhaps I'm just less willing to make the free speech street one: he can express his opinion, but we shouldn't express our opposition to his opinion. Seems reasonable that it should flow both ways, if that's what you're saying. I may have misconstrued your point, if I did, meaculpa.
I don't think it is, honestly. Nothing about his desire to suppress gay marriage speaks to how to treats people and individuals, nor how Mozilla would - look at Bill Marriott he also contributed to Prop 8, and Marriott is very well regarded for benefits to gays and lesbians (100% score as of 2014 for Marriott International) - in short, just because your personal views are X doesn't mean that X is the view your business will take.
If we don't defend the rights for free speech any of us could run the risk of being on the wrong end of that knife in the future.
If we don't defend the rights for free speech any of us could run the risk of being on the wrong end of that knife in the future.
Was Marriott well regarded before he (I'm assuming he was in charge at the time) contributed to Prop 8? Then he has a track record of not letting his personal views get in the way.
I think people were mostly unhappy that Eich has no track record in this regard - not that there's any reason to suspect he would be discriminating - and that he kept dodging the issue in interviews. It's a PR disaster on Mozilla's part - putting him in charge was always going to create an internet frenzy and the - possibly entirely innocent - coincidental departure of three board members does not look good.
Eh. I think it could all have been handled in a much wiser fashion by Mozilla and none of this would have happened.
I think people were mostly unhappy that Eich has no track record in this regard - not that there's any reason to suspect he would be discriminating - and that he kept dodging the issue in interviews. It's a PR disaster on Mozilla's part - putting him in charge was always going to create an internet frenzy and the - possibly entirely innocent - coincidental departure of three board members does not look good.
Eh. I think it could all have been handled in a much wiser fashion by Mozilla and none of this would have happened.
The thing I find most challenging about the context of this whole story is this: if we extrapolate the moral position out properly, anyone that has ever - at any point in their life - been a bigot (in any way), been sexist in any way (toward men or women), or been racist in any way (toward blacks, whites, anyone), is to be disqualified from being Mozilla CEO. One comment at any point in a lifetime, should be enough to warrant exclusion and mob justice.
The typical response: oh, but that'd be going too far. It's only too far when it starts to ensnare most of the population. The mob likes easy, solitary targets, that could never include themselves.
I say let's see how this holds up under actual practice. Every Mozilla CEO must be diligently screened for having ever once said or done something hateful toward any possible category of persons.
Ever told a racist joke? Ever said something inappropriate to someone? Ever leered at a woman or man inappropriately? Ever supported a politician whose stated position was to discriminate against gay marriage? Disqualified. The mob is always a mass of hypocrites and cowards, unwilling to apply their projected standards to their own thoughts, behavior and choices.
The typical response: oh, but that'd be going too far. It's only too far when it starts to ensnare most of the population. The mob likes easy, solitary targets, that could never include themselves.
I say let's see how this holds up under actual practice. Every Mozilla CEO must be diligently screened for having ever once said or done something hateful toward any possible category of persons.
Ever told a racist joke? Ever said something inappropriate to someone? Ever leered at a woman or man inappropriately? Ever supported a politician whose stated position was to discriminate against gay marriage? Disqualified. The mob is always a mass of hypocrites and cowards, unwilling to apply their projected standards to their own thoughts, behavior and choices.
Bullshit. All it would have taken would have been a "my position on this has evolved over time" statement and a $1k donation to a pro-LGBTQ organization, and the situation would have been defused.
Instead, Eich dug in his heels insisting that his personal opinions in this area would not affect his work as CEO. This might have actually been true, but it didn't seem credible.
Instead, Eich dug in his heels insisting that his personal opinions in this area would not affect his work as CEO. This might have actually been true, but it didn't seem credible.
It's essentially a mob of hysteria - using pitchforks, torches and the protection of the mob to uphold standards they would be unwilling to stand up for directly - by making a bunch of noise online, they can assuage their individual guilt for their inaction elsewhere.
Under Islam, the penalty for being gay is DEATH. Beheading, stoning or hanging, depends on how the Sharia court is feeling that day. So why don't all these activists start calling out and protesting outside mosques and embassies?
Perhaps the mob are cowards, more comfortable lynching one man over his views rather than tackling real persecution on a global scale.
Perhaps the mob are cowards, more comfortable lynching one man over his views rather than tackling real persecution on a global scale.
Agreed. Laws reflect society's view of morality; on gay marriage, those views are changing and the laws haven't quite caught up. Now, I am very carefully not saying that it's okay to use the democratic system to persecute minorities, because it's not, but no sensible person is going to argue that laws against theft should be struck down because they persecute kleptomaniacs. There must exist a grey area somewhere in the middle of the scale where it's hard to tell whether the law is persecuting a minority or upholding a legitimate moral principle (the fact that euthanasia is illegal likely falls in that area right now), and though that grey area is hard to discern (contentious public political discussions would be a reasonable approximation though) I think at least in principle we should be able to respect other people's views on issues in it.
More ironic when you consider: "Obama Says He Is Against Same-Sex Marriage" http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/
So was Hillary Clinton until a year ago. And they both repeatedly raised money to candidates that were against same-sex marriage. I guess neither of them are qualified to run Mozilla.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/thecaucus/2013/03/18/hillary...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/thecaucus/2013/03/18/hillary...
Well they're either hypocrites, or (ahem...) they learned.
They "evolved" like pond scum!
FWIW, I never believed Obama when he said that. I just assumed he had to say it for the votes.
Eich is a different story; for a modern tech company with a presence in SF, which is super-pro-LGBT. Also I see mozilla more as a family than a company(I'm sure it's due to branding/marketing) and having a person who +++donated funds+++ to prop8 as the CEO was a very awkward concept for me to accept. It's one thing to believe different things than I do, it's another thing altogether to ///donate funds/// to prevent something that really does him no harm yet inconveniences/saddens others. To me, that's an ethically corrupt action. Then he becomes the CEO of a company that is soaked in a culture of leftwing pro-LGBT. It's the donation that crosses the line for me.
Furthermore, it makes me wonder if he'd use his legally-obtained funds as Moz-CEO to do similar, more significant, donations in the future to other laws that would conflict with the Moz culture.
I guess you have to decide when opinion is just that, or something more harmful. A KKK member shouldn't be leader of the BlackGirlsCode effort and Eich shouldn't be the head of Mozilla. Of course, this analogy shows that I think of Mozilla as a very open-minded, liberal, pro-LGBT promoter rather than just a company that makes software. I can't convince anyone to see mozilla the way I do, but somehow they've put that spell on me... and clearly on enough people to cause this whole ordeal and resulting fallout.
Eich is a different story; for a modern tech company with a presence in SF, which is super-pro-LGBT. Also I see mozilla more as a family than a company(I'm sure it's due to branding/marketing) and having a person who +++donated funds+++ to prop8 as the CEO was a very awkward concept for me to accept. It's one thing to believe different things than I do, it's another thing altogether to ///donate funds/// to prevent something that really does him no harm yet inconveniences/saddens others. To me, that's an ethically corrupt action. Then he becomes the CEO of a company that is soaked in a culture of leftwing pro-LGBT. It's the donation that crosses the line for me.
Furthermore, it makes me wonder if he'd use his legally-obtained funds as Moz-CEO to do similar, more significant, donations in the future to other laws that would conflict with the Moz culture.
I guess you have to decide when opinion is just that, or something more harmful. A KKK member shouldn't be leader of the BlackGirlsCode effort and Eich shouldn't be the head of Mozilla. Of course, this analogy shows that I think of Mozilla as a very open-minded, liberal, pro-LGBT promoter rather than just a company that makes software. I can't convince anyone to see mozilla the way I do, but somehow they've put that spell on me... and clearly on enough people to cause this whole ordeal and resulting fallout.
So you say you are a witch smeller? You can smell Clinton is pro LGBT, and Moz-CEO was not. Good set of nostrils you got there.
Yeah no kidding. I remember dem friends ardently trying to convince me that it was pro gay to be anti-gay marriage and pro-civil union. No, you're not pro gay, you're just trotting out talking points so you can appear to have to both way, ala Bill Clinton's Dont Ask Don't Tell. Separate but Equal.
I'm so tired of the double talk. Look, if you truly believe in human rights, then you have to respect people's choices of what to do with their bodies. If you can't don't that, then you think you know better and want to tell people what to do with their bodies. I just can't get behind that. I'm not perfect, so who am I to tell someone else to do with their body if it's not hurting them?
Meh, politicians.
I'm so tired of the double talk. Look, if you truly believe in human rights, then you have to respect people's choices of what to do with their bodies. If you can't don't that, then you think you know better and want to tell people what to do with their bodies. I just can't get behind that. I'm not perfect, so who am I to tell someone else to do with their body if it's not hurting them?
Meh, politicians.
I hear ya, but I guess I look at it like this: if you believe something and want to practice it while respecting other peoples beliefs with which you disagree, and importantly you don't put money and power into laws that prevent them from doing something that doesn't hurt you, and is none of your business, hey that's respectful. I can get behind that. That's being a decent human being. Mind you this is not an indictment of Mozilla, just him.
But, if you spend money to prevent other adults from doing something your religion tells you is wrong, but it's so etching that (1) not hurting you, (2) not hurting them, (3) involves love(!), and (4) frankly is none of your damn business anyway: yeahs you're not being respectful, you think you know better and want to force your beliefs on someone else. Well, maybe I'm crazy, but that's just wrong. Mind your own business I say. Again, not Mozilla, but well I get the politics of mAking a scene. This kind of know-it-all-ness has got to stop. Respect your fellow man. Stop trotting out religion as an excuse to force your idea of victimless morality on other people.
So yeah, I feel ya, but seriously, what loving adults do between each other, in the name of love for goodness sake(of all the things to be opposed to!), that's just wrong to get between. Your deserve a smack if you want to pass laws to make that illegal. Mind your own business dude.
So, look, I understand he thinks he was doing the right thing, but he wasn't. He backed a proposal to oppress people. That's never good.
But hey, we are all allowed to learn, everyone can change, so it may be a bit harsh if he's penalized after apologizing. But it was still a mistake to back this kind of nonsense on his part. Mind your own business dude.
But, if you spend money to prevent other adults from doing something your religion tells you is wrong, but it's so etching that (1) not hurting you, (2) not hurting them, (3) involves love(!), and (4) frankly is none of your damn business anyway: yeahs you're not being respectful, you think you know better and want to force your beliefs on someone else. Well, maybe I'm crazy, but that's just wrong. Mind your own business I say. Again, not Mozilla, but well I get the politics of mAking a scene. This kind of know-it-all-ness has got to stop. Respect your fellow man. Stop trotting out religion as an excuse to force your idea of victimless morality on other people.
So yeah, I feel ya, but seriously, what loving adults do between each other, in the name of love for goodness sake(of all the things to be opposed to!), that's just wrong to get between. Your deserve a smack if you want to pass laws to make that illegal. Mind your own business dude.
So, look, I understand he thinks he was doing the right thing, but he wasn't. He backed a proposal to oppress people. That's never good.
But hey, we are all allowed to learn, everyone can change, so it may be a bit harsh if he's penalized after apologizing. But it was still a mistake to back this kind of nonsense on his part. Mind your own business dude.
That's totally a fair argument. I'm only as okay as I am with the donation because it's not large with respect to Branden Eich's net worth (which I don't know, but I assume an engineer of his calibre and seniority makes a very comfortably six-figure salary, even working for a non-profit), and thus seems to be an act of roughly the same order of magnitude as his vote on the issue.
There is some point (I don't know where - $5k, $10k?) where I'd stop being okay with it.
There is some point (I don't know where - $5k, $10k?) where I'd stop being okay with it.
> One thing’s for sure. If you eat at Chick-Fil-A, your money will support anti-gay causes.
Which is also technically true if you do business with any company that employs any people who oppose gay rights. Or if you do business with any company that itself does business with another company that employs any people who oppose gay rights.
Which is also technically true if you do business with any company that employs any people who oppose gay rights. Or if you do business with any company that itself does business with another company that employs any people who oppose gay rights.
The fallout from this will be interesting to watch. If there are other employees of Mozilla that supported Prop. 8 or are otherwise opposed to gay marriage, do they now fear for their jobs?
I keep seeing the argument that it's only because he became CEO, which is completely different than CTO. While there is some truth to that, it mostly comes across as post witch-hunt rationalization to me.
Maybe witch-hunt is a little strong, but the level of vitriol in OKCupid's message directed towards Eich (and effectively at anyone who shares that opinion) felt genuinely disturbing to me.
Maybe I'm just not cut out for these Internets.
I keep seeing the argument that it's only because he became CEO, which is completely different than CTO. While there is some truth to that, it mostly comes across as post witch-hunt rationalization to me.
Maybe witch-hunt is a little strong, but the level of vitriol in OKCupid's message directed towards Eich (and effectively at anyone who shares that opinion) felt genuinely disturbing to me.
Maybe I'm just not cut out for these Internets.
> I am equally disappointed in Mozillians and in demagogues who didn't see the irony in hounding someone for their private opinion because of "intolerance."
His opinion is no longer private. Once you vote with your dollars you have publicly acknowledged your opinion.
I don't know if I really support what happened to Eich, but this whole event opens your eyes to the hypocrisy of the tech community. If some person not well known to the loudest voices of the community says something insensitive they will have their lives ruined. Someone like Eich does something similar and all of a sudden it is, "whoa, now, let's not overreact."
His opinion is no longer private. Once you vote with your dollars you have publicly acknowledged your opinion.
I don't know if I really support what happened to Eich, but this whole event opens your eyes to the hypocrisy of the tech community. If some person not well known to the loudest voices of the community says something insensitive they will have their lives ruined. Someone like Eich does something similar and all of a sudden it is, "whoa, now, let's not overreact."
"His opinion is no longer private. Once you vote with your dollars you have publicly acknowledged your opinion."
Here is the thing, SCotUS has ruled that the 1st amendment protects anonymous political speech precisely because a lack of anonymity can lead to the "economic or official retaliation" against those with differing political views and has also ruled that money, in the context of politics, is speech. So is there a constitutional imperative to protect the anonymity of political speech when that speech comes in monetary form? I personally believe that we are better off being able to see how our leaders have financed their campaigns, but what we have hear is prima facie evidence that not protecting speech when it is in monetary forms leads to the exact sort retaliation that the Supreme Court used in the justification of McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. I emphatically don't agree with his views, but the threat to everyone's right to free political speech and the potential threat to transparency of campaign finances are not to be taken lightly.
And the people describing his actions to help get gay marriage banned in California as merely "an opinion" that should be respected and treated as "free speech" are just laughably wrong.
Yes let's clear this up.
1. ~52% of Californians voted for Prop 8. True. But Prop 8 was also confusing to votes as to what "Yes" or "No" meant. Supporters of gay marriage were worried that people would believe Yes meant support of gay marriage and vice-versa.
2. The point about Prop 8 wasn't "marriage." The underlying reason gays wanted to marry is for tax breaks and legal privileges. If you cannot be in a "marriage" you are essentially being taxed more and afforded unequal rights to people who can be in a marriage.
1. ~52% of Californians voted for Prop 8. True. But Prop 8 was also confusing to votes as to what "Yes" or "No" meant. Supporters of gay marriage were worried that people would believe Yes meant support of gay marriage and vice-versa.
2. The point about Prop 8 wasn't "marriage." The underlying reason gays wanted to marry is for tax breaks and legal privileges. If you cannot be in a "marriage" you are essentially being taxed more and afforded unequal rights to people who can be in a marriage.
Indeed. They passed a law to make it illegal. That's no longer an opinion, that's an action.
Proposition 8 took away my right to marry. It's a pretty shitty thing to find out that the majority of voters in your home state believe it's OK to treat you as a second class citizen. When Brendan Eich sent in that check for $1,000 in support of Proposition 8, he was making the statement that I should not continue to have the right to marry the person I love and that explicit discrimination against gay people should be enshrined in California's constitution. It left a lot of people very upset. I don't agree with with lashing out at Eich, but I understand it.
So if the long march of progress makes a fast food drive-thru a site of civic participation, well, that’s surreal—but it’s democracy in action.
I wonder if this guy is aware that "long march" almost always refers to the "long march through the institutions", which is essentially a Marxist plan to subvert society. (When it's not referring to the original "long march" by Mao's forces.) I'm guessing he is. It reminds me of the old commie-styled Mozilla red star logo. Was that an accident? What's with these people? At any rate, if you ever want to donate to any political cause, make sure it's 100 percent anonymous. That includes supporters of gay marriage. When the worm turns, you might get the same as you gave.
I wonder if this guy is aware that "long march" almost always refers to the "long march through the institutions", which is essentially a Marxist plan to subvert society. (When it's not referring to the original "long march" by Mao's forces.) I'm guessing he is. It reminds me of the old commie-styled Mozilla red star logo. Was that an accident? What's with these people? At any rate, if you ever want to donate to any political cause, make sure it's 100 percent anonymous. That includes supporters of gay marriage. When the worm turns, you might get the same as you gave.
I can get behind anonymous donations. After all, we vote anonymously, anonymous speech is protected speech, so why shouldn't anonymous donations be protected as well? In the marketplace of ideas, shouldn't it be the ideas that are judged and not who said them or who paid for the ad?
At the level of donation in this example, that probably works. Consider though a donation of say, $1 million. Is it important to know who donates that amount and thus potentially exerting a great deal of influence?
Maybe the notable difference is that while votes are anonymous, every vote is equal.
Maybe the notable difference is that while votes are anonymous, every vote is equal.
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
I think that the great tech though-crime purge of 2013-? will end up having a different outcome than intended...
I think that the great tech though-crime purge of 2013-? will end up having a different outcome than intended...
I'm going to take a different stand than the one a lot of people seem to keep echoing here. I think it was the right thing for Eich to step down.
This isn't about free speech, it's about basic human rights.
Let me try to re-frame it this way; had Eich been a white supremacist and had contributed money to the KKK, do you still think he would have been fit to lead Mozilla? The same arguments being bandied around here apply.
Whether people want to admit it or not, this guy is (was) the public face of the organization. Despite being an avid user of Firefox, I definitely would hesitate to donate money with him as the CEO. And, were I an employee of Mozilla, I'd probably consider leaving. I'm also sure that I'm not alone in this. If Mozilla is shedding employees and losing donations as a result of him being at the head, he clearly isn't the right person to be the leader.
As for free speech, I love the first amendment. Eich certainly has the right to express his (completely ridiculous and hateful) opinion. Everyone else also has the right to pressure him to not be the head of a charitable organization which promotes tolerance.
This isn't about free speech, it's about basic human rights.
Let me try to re-frame it this way; had Eich been a white supremacist and had contributed money to the KKK, do you still think he would have been fit to lead Mozilla? The same arguments being bandied around here apply.
Whether people want to admit it or not, this guy is (was) the public face of the organization. Despite being an avid user of Firefox, I definitely would hesitate to donate money with him as the CEO. And, were I an employee of Mozilla, I'd probably consider leaving. I'm also sure that I'm not alone in this. If Mozilla is shedding employees and losing donations as a result of him being at the head, he clearly isn't the right person to be the leader.
As for free speech, I love the first amendment. Eich certainly has the right to express his (completely ridiculous and hateful) opinion. Everyone else also has the right to pressure him to not be the head of a charitable organization which promotes tolerance.
>had Eich been a white supremacist
In this first part, you equate white supremacists with what I assume would be "homophobic bigots," implying that there's concrete evidence of Eich being such a "homophobic bigot." When there's not.
In this first part, you equate white supremacists with what I assume would be "homophobic bigots," implying that there's concrete evidence of Eich being such a "homophobic bigot." When there's not.
... other than giving $1,000 to support Prop 8 and denying people the right to get married.
That's not concrete evidence, sorry. Your logic is faulty:
1) You're equating his monetary support for Prop 8 as evidence of homophobic bigotry, which by itself it is not.
It's quite obvious that Eich is deeply religious: the herd mentality in those circles is that because same-sex couples can’t produce biological children together, they shouldn't be recognized as marriages.
This is rational if you see the institution of marriage as a state-recognized union between that's only between a man and a woman, which has long social and cultural roots. The same can not be said for bans on interracial marriages which are just backed by racism, and not objective facts.
Ultimately, assuming that these are Eich's views (which is very likely,) they are ignorant because they focus too much on sex and too little on the idea of commitment and love.
What they aren't: grounds for throwing around labels like "homophobic bigot," as there are many who empathize with those who are discriminated against, abused, disowned, lynched and executed because of their expression of gender identity. They see nothing wrong with homosexuals, but rather take issue with marriage as an institution being redefined.
Haven't seen any evidence that Eich opposes civil partnerships. I want nothing to do with marriage personally and would much rather a civil partnership for my relationship, but dissolving the state-recognized institution of marriage completely is very messy.
So redefining marriage is the best choice, lest we have separate but equal legal frameworks: marriages for heterosexual couples and civil unions for homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples who want nothing to do with marriage but want the benefits it brings.
2) You're comparing Eich to the KKK which executed thousands of people, which is a disgusting comparison but you may just be historically ignorant.
Eich was pressured to resign just because he wouldn't parrot empty words about how he's "evolved" on the issue in the court of public opinion, like President Obama has.
And we're worse off for it, because he was the most qualified to lead Mozilla.
1) You're equating his monetary support for Prop 8 as evidence of homophobic bigotry, which by itself it is not.
It's quite obvious that Eich is deeply religious: the herd mentality in those circles is that because same-sex couples can’t produce biological children together, they shouldn't be recognized as marriages.
This is rational if you see the institution of marriage as a state-recognized union between that's only between a man and a woman, which has long social and cultural roots. The same can not be said for bans on interracial marriages which are just backed by racism, and not objective facts.
Ultimately, assuming that these are Eich's views (which is very likely,) they are ignorant because they focus too much on sex and too little on the idea of commitment and love.
What they aren't: grounds for throwing around labels like "homophobic bigot," as there are many who empathize with those who are discriminated against, abused, disowned, lynched and executed because of their expression of gender identity. They see nothing wrong with homosexuals, but rather take issue with marriage as an institution being redefined.
Haven't seen any evidence that Eich opposes civil partnerships. I want nothing to do with marriage personally and would much rather a civil partnership for my relationship, but dissolving the state-recognized institution of marriage completely is very messy.
So redefining marriage is the best choice, lest we have separate but equal legal frameworks: marriages for heterosexual couples and civil unions for homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples who want nothing to do with marriage but want the benefits it brings.
2) You're comparing Eich to the KKK which executed thousands of people, which is a disgusting comparison but you may just be historically ignorant.
Eich was pressured to resign just because he wouldn't parrot empty words about how he's "evolved" on the issue in the court of public opinion, like President Obama has.
And we're worse off for it, because he was the most qualified to lead Mozilla.
He may have been the most technically qualified to lead Mozilla but he's definitely lacking in, most obviously, PR and shitstorm handling.
Actually, if you read back through the comments, you were the person who used the term "homophobic bigot", and nowhere did I equate Eich to being a white supremacist or part of the KKK. I used it as an example for how people would react given the KKK's stance on human rights.
Our first amendment rights in this county give us the freedom of speech, but they also give us the freedom of religion. And, by extension, the freedom from religion. Eich's personal views on gay marriage shouldn't trump the rights of anyone else, and him donating to a cause which denies people their rights seriously calls into question his judgement and whether he is fit to be the leader of an organization which espouses liberal ideals.
I'll give you another analogy. If Prop 8 were to deny the rights of black people getting married, and Eich had donated $1,000 to support it, would you still feel the same way?
Our first amendment rights in this county give us the freedom of speech, but they also give us the freedom of religion. And, by extension, the freedom from religion. Eich's personal views on gay marriage shouldn't trump the rights of anyone else, and him donating to a cause which denies people their rights seriously calls into question his judgement and whether he is fit to be the leader of an organization which espouses liberal ideals.
I'll give you another analogy. If Prop 8 were to deny the rights of black people getting married, and Eich had donated $1,000 to support it, would you still feel the same way?
I asked you if you were equating Eich with homophobic bigots, and you confirmed that you did.
And no, I wouldn't feel the same way. As I said in that post, there's no biological basis or objective fact for refusing to accept interracial marriages. They're only justified by racism. There is however, a biological reason that Eich and others might not accept same-sex marriages.
It's a rational, yet very ignorant view. The point is that opposing same-sex marriage is definitely not the same when you do a direct comparison to interracial marriage bans.
Either way: the damage is done, the bridges were burned, and it's clear that you're among those who just want to be outraged about this group of people's ignorance instead of reaching out to them and striving for dialog, so there's no point in having this conversation.
And no, I wouldn't feel the same way. As I said in that post, there's no biological basis or objective fact for refusing to accept interracial marriages. They're only justified by racism. There is however, a biological reason that Eich and others might not accept same-sex marriages.
It's a rational, yet very ignorant view. The point is that opposing same-sex marriage is definitely not the same when you do a direct comparison to interracial marriage bans.
Either way: the damage is done, the bridges were burned, and it's clear that you're among those who just want to be outraged about this group of people's ignorance instead of reaching out to them and striving for dialog, so there's no point in having this conversation.
There are currently two posts on the main page about this. Do we really need a third? Is this really the kind of place where we are going to push a story about Postgres and the Linux kernel off the main page so that we can have another nasty political fight? I guess I'm new here and don't know the community that well, but that seems more than a little sad and absurd.
It is a shame though cause this is kind of a decent write-up.
It is a shame though cause this is kind of a decent write-up.
I think it's fitting. The Chief Technology Officer for many years at Mozilla, once promoted to CEO, suffers great pushback and voluntarily steps down as a result.
For Mozilla, technology in this case was not more important than community values. Postgres and Linux have technological improvements, but I'm eager to see the tech industry be far more self-aware in trying to progress in its social issues, rather than just progress with features.
Plus, this was a struggle and many on these forums were affected. The underlying causes won't go away after one day, and more worryingly, perhaps not for years to come.
For Mozilla, technology in this case was not more important than community values. Postgres and Linux have technological improvements, but I'm eager to see the tech industry be far more self-aware in trying to progress in its social issues, rather than just progress with features.
Plus, this was a struggle and many on these forums were affected. The underlying causes won't go away after one day, and more worryingly, perhaps not for years to come.
Indeed, in the no-privacy Facebook era, we all look forward to fully vetting the personal lives of our business leaders and employees.
With this inspiring precedent, we can have confidence that the next CEO of Mozilla --and every other company, we hope-- will be well vetted to hold the correct behaviors -- the only, obviously morally correct behaviors-- toward the great challenges of our time: women's abortion rights (or is it fetuses' birth rights?), animal abuse rights (factory farm supporters are unfit to lead), gentrification (wealthy SF residents displace evicted tenants, ruining their lives, so they are not leadership material), ...
With this inspiring precedent, we can have confidence that the next CEO of Mozilla --and every other company, we hope-- will be well vetted to hold the correct behaviors -- the only, obviously morally correct behaviors-- toward the great challenges of our time: women's abortion rights (or is it fetuses' birth rights?), animal abuse rights (factory farm supporters are unfit to lead), gentrification (wealthy SF residents displace evicted tenants, ruining their lives, so they are not leadership material), ...
Certain communities are more sensitive to certain insults. SF, in particular, is home to many gay people; many of them came to this area of the country in particular to escape persecution. Even now coming out to your parents can be quite hard, but you don't have to travel back more than a few years to regularly hear stories of children summarily kicked out of the house, parents never speaking to children again, etc. This is a community that also welcomes, and to a certain extent prizes, nonconformists; or others that have had really shit experiences in grade school, high school, or the cities they grew up in
All of which says that the community of which mozilla is a part is particularly sensitive to slights against gay people. This should have been, oh, completely unsurprising.
And the ceo is often symbolic in a way that a cto isn't.
And in particular, I wouldn't work for firefox while he was ceo. He made a donation specifically intended to maliciously hurt my friends and neighbors. I can't support that.
All of which says that the community of which mozilla is a part is particularly sensitive to slights against gay people. This should have been, oh, completely unsurprising.
And the ceo is often symbolic in a way that a cto isn't.
And in particular, I wouldn't work for firefox while he was ceo. He made a donation specifically intended to maliciously hurt my friends and neighbors. I can't support that.
> He made a donation specifically intended to maliciously hurt my friends and neighbors.
Where the fuck did you get that idea? You just made that up. You don't know his specific purpose, you may think you can infer it but you certainly don't know it.
Furthermore, there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest he acted out of malice. It is far more plausible that he considered gay marriage inconsistent with his religious beliefs and that he also felt compelled by his religion to defend his view of what marriage should be.
Where the fuck did you get that idea? You just made that up. You don't know his specific purpose, you may think you can infer it but you certainly don't know it.
Furthermore, there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest he acted out of malice. It is far more plausible that he considered gay marriage inconsistent with his religious beliefs and that he also felt compelled by his religion to defend his view of what marriage should be.
1 - by their fruits ye shall know them
2 - because i'm not deliberately obtuse or stupid
2 - because i'm not deliberately obtuse or stupid
They have to be vegan too. Protect the animals!
Needs more satire, I almost believed you.
I feel exactly the same way you do, about the prominence this issue has on the front page, the quality of the discussions it's produced, and this particular writeup. I flagged the story; it's not about technology, but, as 'dang would say, about politics using technology as its host organism.
I think it's worth the attention because Mozilla is a huge part of our life as hackers, and their mismanagement of the controversy could be a big case study for the rest of us.
Would things have changed if he made a big direct apology instead of mumbling something about "causing pain" buried in some blog post? Could Mozilla have done X or tried Y instead? I think we're going to be dissecting this for a while.
Would things have changed if he made a big direct apology instead of mumbling something about "causing pain" buried in some blog post? Could Mozilla have done X or tried Y instead? I think we're going to be dissecting this for a while.
If a christian run organization fired an employee (lets not kid ourselves here, Eich was fired) because they paid $1,000 to support gay marriage, how dramatically would the reaction differ from this situation?
Why the huge difference? because in our culture, we are not "allowed" to voice a different opinion than the SCOTUS. Even if the majority populous agrees with our opinion.
I know what you are going to say... This is a civil rights issue. It is now a homosexual's civil right to be married because the court said so.
When I hear the term civil rights, I always think of blacks and whites in America, segregation and unequal rights because of race.
Non Caucasian people were not allowed to use the same schools, bathrooms, bus seats, or even drinking fountains that white people used. That was wrong. Everyone is human and should be treated with dignity.
These days we have this out of control "equality" thing that just kind of blindly rolls over common sense.
If there is no distinction between men and women in marriage now, then what about the rest of the gender based legal things like a law preventing a man from going into a women's locker room at the local gym and showering with 10 year old girls that happen to be showering in there. Well gay men can shower with boys in the locker next door, so why not? Why are there women's battery laws? Special rape laws only for women? There are literally thousands of laws that are preferential toward or only exist to assist women? Can't a gay man have these same laws applied to him just like marriage? It just isn't fair if they aren't. This breaks "Equality".
Men and women are different, that is why there are different rules for us. Homosexuals did not fit the description of marriage because it was defined by gender, since this fundamental attribute was thrown out, it seems only fair to throw out any and all gender biased laws, rules, and guidelines.
If a women feels that she was violated because a man came into the women's shower while she was shaving, how is this different than a women feeling that her marriage was violated because it also was re-defined as being genderless.
I just don't grasp the "logic" (or lack thereof) that people today must use to come up with such thoughts and justifications.
Why the huge difference? because in our culture, we are not "allowed" to voice a different opinion than the SCOTUS. Even if the majority populous agrees with our opinion.
I know what you are going to say... This is a civil rights issue. It is now a homosexual's civil right to be married because the court said so.
When I hear the term civil rights, I always think of blacks and whites in America, segregation and unequal rights because of race.
Non Caucasian people were not allowed to use the same schools, bathrooms, bus seats, or even drinking fountains that white people used. That was wrong. Everyone is human and should be treated with dignity.
These days we have this out of control "equality" thing that just kind of blindly rolls over common sense.
If there is no distinction between men and women in marriage now, then what about the rest of the gender based legal things like a law preventing a man from going into a women's locker room at the local gym and showering with 10 year old girls that happen to be showering in there. Well gay men can shower with boys in the locker next door, so why not? Why are there women's battery laws? Special rape laws only for women? There are literally thousands of laws that are preferential toward or only exist to assist women? Can't a gay man have these same laws applied to him just like marriage? It just isn't fair if they aren't. This breaks "Equality".
Men and women are different, that is why there are different rules for us. Homosexuals did not fit the description of marriage because it was defined by gender, since this fundamental attribute was thrown out, it seems only fair to throw out any and all gender biased laws, rules, and guidelines.
If a women feels that she was violated because a man came into the women's shower while she was shaving, how is this different than a women feeling that her marriage was violated because it also was re-defined as being genderless.
I just don't grasp the "logic" (or lack thereof) that people today must use to come up with such thoughts and justifications.
This is not a free speech issue. I wish people would stop making that mistake. A private company can fire anyone they want in California for whatever reason they want.
You're an idiot or incredibly naive if you don't think this is a free speech issue. A guy was forced to resign because he has a different opinion than some group of people. It's bullshit.
Sorry, but "free speech" really only applies when the government gets involved in regulating it. Read the Constitution sometime.
He could just as easily have been ousted from his role for wearing the wrong color shirt to work, if enough people didn't like it.
He could just as easily have been ousted from his role for wearing the wrong color shirt to work, if enough people didn't like it.
That's exactly right. By all means, protest a corporation that uses corporate resources to fund hate. That's not what happened at Mozilla.
Mozilla is beautiful because they've united very different people for a common, worthy purpose. To accomplish that, they must firewall personal opinions, politics and prejudices that are not relevant to their mission.
That firewall has now been breached. It's scary to think that an important organization with a critical mission could be damaged by this breach.
Well said and incisively reasoned, Andrew Sullivan.