Mozilla boss Brendan Eich resigns after gay marriage storm(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Mozilla boss Brendan Eich resigns after gay marriage storm
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26868536
12 comments
> ...you might be the one receiving this treatment.
Like it or not, the CEO of Mozilla is a public figure, and people are entitled to have opinions about public figures and to voice those opinions, and Mozilla is free to consider those opinions when choosing a CEO. This is literally how every boycott or other similar action happens.
No one (that I know of) called for the government to remove Eich, no one called for him to be lynched, they called for Mozilla to remove Eich or for Eich to resign or, failing one of those, for people to stop supporting Mozilla. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. What you call "thoughtcrime" has another name: public discourse.
"people are entitled to have opinions about public figures and to voice those opinions"
Sure, people are entitled to their opinions, and that is what this is all about. The problem here is that someone lost his job because of his opinion.
"This is literally how every boycott or other similar action happens."
Boycotts are typically about corporate policies, practices, or lobbying. For example, I know people who refuse to shop at Walmart because of the company's anti-unionization efforts.
What we saw here is very different. At no point did Mozilla take any kind of anti-gay-marriage position. At no point did Mozilla do anything that was hostile to homosexual employees, users, or people in general. This was a boycott over the CEO's personal beliefs, despite the complete lack of evidence or accusations of him using his position at Mozilla to advance those beliefs. What happened here is that Mozilla's public image was attacked in an effort to punish Eich for his opinion.
"What you call "thoughtcrime" has another name: public discourse."
No, public discourse involves people calmly stating their views and arguing for those views (e.g. what we are doing right now). It is not public discourse when someone loses their job because of their opinion, all the more so when that opinion has no relevance to their job. It is not public discourse when people band together to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them.
Eich was punished for having an opinion that people do not like. He was told that he has no right to be a leader in the tech community because of that opinion, without regard to his contributions to the community, without regard to his behavior in a leadership position at Mozilla. There are only two terms that are appropriate in describing what happened: thoughtcrime and bullying.
Sure, people are entitled to their opinions, and that is what this is all about. The problem here is that someone lost his job because of his opinion.
"This is literally how every boycott or other similar action happens."
Boycotts are typically about corporate policies, practices, or lobbying. For example, I know people who refuse to shop at Walmart because of the company's anti-unionization efforts.
What we saw here is very different. At no point did Mozilla take any kind of anti-gay-marriage position. At no point did Mozilla do anything that was hostile to homosexual employees, users, or people in general. This was a boycott over the CEO's personal beliefs, despite the complete lack of evidence or accusations of him using his position at Mozilla to advance those beliefs. What happened here is that Mozilla's public image was attacked in an effort to punish Eich for his opinion.
"What you call "thoughtcrime" has another name: public discourse."
No, public discourse involves people calmly stating their views and arguing for those views (e.g. what we are doing right now). It is not public discourse when someone loses their job because of their opinion, all the more so when that opinion has no relevance to their job. It is not public discourse when people band together to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them.
Eich was punished for having an opinion that people do not like. He was told that he has no right to be a leader in the tech community because of that opinion, without regard to his contributions to the community, without regard to his behavior in a leadership position at Mozilla. There are only two terms that are appropriate in describing what happened: thoughtcrime and bullying.
> ...despite the complete lack of evidence or accusations of him using his position at Mozilla to advance those beliefs.
> ...he has no right to be a leader in the tech community because of that opinion...
> ...Mozilla's public image was attacked in an effort to punish Eich for his opinion.
Eich has a right to his opinion. I think it is very important to point out that I (and I hope others who share my opinion) would not have supported government intervention to remove him. I don't think he should be forced to believe something he doesn't believe, or to pretend to believe something he doesn't believe. But I also see nothing wrong with expecting our leaders to have moral views we find acceptable, and the CEO of Mozilla is definitely a leader, and being vocal about it when they don't.
No evidence was necessary, because it doesn't matter.
Truly the words of a fair, rational, and tolerant stance.
Truly the words of a fair, rational, and tolerant stance.
Is there anything short of resignation that Eich could have said or done that would have satisfied people participating in the protests against his appointment? If not, then the lessons learned here (either by Eich or by the people who called for his removal) are bad ones.
Eich was in a tough spot here. He holds beliefs (and contributed to causes in favour of those beliefs) that may be in opposition to Mozilla’s HR policies. It is absolutely important to know that he would ensure that those policies would be enforced fairly.
I’m not sure there are any good resolutions to this sort of problem.
Eich was in a tough spot here. He holds beliefs (and contributed to causes in favour of those beliefs) that may be in opposition to Mozilla’s HR policies. It is absolutely important to know that he would ensure that those policies would be enforced fairly.
I’m not sure there are any good resolutions to this sort of problem.
"I was wrong to use the power of law to enforce my religious views on other people." would have satisfied me.
If Mozilla would have stood by Brendan Eich, it would have blown over and been forgotten. Seriously, choice of a piece of software no one pays for and a donation someone made in a personal capacity 6 years ago -- this is not a subject worthy of this amount of noise.
I'm really struggling to decide where to come down on this issue. It absolutely is a bigoted opinion that he holds and essentially comes down to denying a group of people happiness for no good reason.
It is extremely unlikely that these beliefs would affect Eich's job performance, though it is probable that holding those beliefs would affect the performance of Mozilla contributors - and for a group (corporation?) which relies on volunteers to function, this is an important consideration.
Plus, a big part of Mozilla's modus operandi is holding itself to a higher standard - and I don't see why that shouldn't apply to social issues as well, especially for those which Mozilla's community deems important. I have seen arguments that this is only a vocal minority making a fuss - I would imagine that the vast majority of those involved in Mozilla believe in equal rights for gay people, and many are upset (I am upset that he seems resolute in his views and refuses to have a conversation about it, for instance).
I do feel bad for the guy, though - it seems like he played a massive part in getting Mozilla to where it was today - but he partially brought this on himself, and not just by way of a $1000 donation 6 years ago, but also how he reacted to it recently.
It is extremely unlikely that these beliefs would affect Eich's job performance, though it is probable that holding those beliefs would affect the performance of Mozilla contributors - and for a group (corporation?) which relies on volunteers to function, this is an important consideration.
Plus, a big part of Mozilla's modus operandi is holding itself to a higher standard - and I don't see why that shouldn't apply to social issues as well, especially for those which Mozilla's community deems important. I have seen arguments that this is only a vocal minority making a fuss - I would imagine that the vast majority of those involved in Mozilla believe in equal rights for gay people, and many are upset (I am upset that he seems resolute in his views and refuses to have a conversation about it, for instance).
I do feel bad for the guy, though - it seems like he played a massive part in getting Mozilla to where it was today - but he partially brought this on himself, and not just by way of a $1000 donation 6 years ago, but also how he reacted to it recently.
It absolutely is a bigoted opinion that he holds and essentially comes down to denying a group of people happiness for no good reason.
Yes, but note how you have framed the situation. What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness? Who then is the arbiter of whose opinion is right? Somehow I don't think it's a good idea for democratic processes to label the side that is wrong as "horrible people." Otherwise, why have a democratic process at all?
he partially brought this on himself, and not just by way of a $1000 donation 6 years ago, but also how he reacted to it recently.
What specifically did he do recently?
Yes, but note how you have framed the situation. What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness? Who then is the arbiter of whose opinion is right? Somehow I don't think it's a good idea for democratic processes to label the side that is wrong as "horrible people." Otherwise, why have a democratic process at all?
he partially brought this on himself, and not just by way of a $1000 donation 6 years ago, but also how he reacted to it recently.
What specifically did he do recently?
> What specifically did he do recently?
> Somehow I don't think it's a good idea for democratic processes to label the side that is wrong as "horrible people."
> What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness?
That's what is so insidious about bigotry, it's not a Lord of the Rings thing where the villain (who conveniently wears black and lives in a scary castle) stands up and says "Muhahaha I'm going to make everyone miserable!". Instead, the villain says "I'm going to help all of you out by forcing you to be just like me, trust me, things will be better this way!".
Bigots almost never seem to believe themselves to be bigots.
Also, the powerful unjust never believe themselves to be unjust.
That's what is so insidious about bigotry, it's not a Lord of the Rings thing where the villain (who conveniently wears black and lives in a scary castle) stands up and says "Muhahaha I'm going to make everyone miserable!". Instead, the villain says "I'm going to help all of you out by forcing you to be just like me, trust me, things will be better this way!".
Seems to me that the same level of insidiousness applies to insisting that everyone else kowtows to your particular opinion. Isn't insisting that Brendan Eich express some particular opinion effectively insisting that, "I'm going to help you out by forcing you to be just like me..."?
Also, the powerful unjust never believe themselves to be unjust.
That's what is so insidious about bigotry, it's not a Lord of the Rings thing where the villain (who conveniently wears black and lives in a scary castle) stands up and says "Muhahaha I'm going to make everyone miserable!". Instead, the villain says "I'm going to help all of you out by forcing you to be just like me, trust me, things will be better this way!".
Seems to me that the same level of insidiousness applies to insisting that everyone else kowtows to your particular opinion. Isn't insisting that Brendan Eich express some particular opinion effectively insisting that, "I'm going to help you out by forcing you to be just like me..."?
Unfortunately Eich's opinion (and monetary contributions) are damaging to others, which is why it's an issue. It's not "I like blue soccer balls and not red ones", it is "those with red soccer balls are immoral and therefore should not be allowed to play soccer". The campaign is not trying to force him to like red soccer balls, it is to accept that he should not be able to prevent those who like red soccer balls (or, as is likely, were genetically predisposed to only like red soccer balls) from playing soccer at all.
Whether or not he should have lost his job/been forced to resign/felt compelled to resign is another question. I don't think anyone would debate that he has been bad for Mozilla in his time with them so far.
Whether or not he should have lost his job/been forced to resign/felt compelled to resign is another question. I don't think anyone would debate that he has been bad for Mozilla in his time with them so far.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Eich donated to a cause that believes the word "marriage" has religious connotations that make it incompatible with a union between two people of the same sex.
That argument in and of itself doesn't cause any harm to anyone.
The harm comes when government institutionalizes marriage in a way that gives it greater rights or scope than someone in a civil union would have. In many states, this isn't the case.
Personally, I don't particularly care what the word marriage means, I'm not religious in any meaningful way. But arguing that the simple inability to use the word marriage does harm to a person is a pretty weak argument in my mind.
Further, your analogy is wrong. From his perspective, imagine you always played soccer with a round ball, and couldn't use your hands. Suddenly a group of people show up with oval spheroid and claim you should be able to use your hands. They then say that not letting them call their sport soccer is unfair and harmful. But ya know, we don't call that sport soccer, because it's different, we call it football.
---
As an aside, I think the proper way to handle the marriage debate would have been to remove any and all rights associated with the word, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. Churches are welcome to marry people all they desire (on both sides, gay or straight as they please according to their beliefs)
That argument in and of itself doesn't cause any harm to anyone.
The harm comes when government institutionalizes marriage in a way that gives it greater rights or scope than someone in a civil union would have. In many states, this isn't the case.
Personally, I don't particularly care what the word marriage means, I'm not religious in any meaningful way. But arguing that the simple inability to use the word marriage does harm to a person is a pretty weak argument in my mind.
Further, your analogy is wrong. From his perspective, imagine you always played soccer with a round ball, and couldn't use your hands. Suddenly a group of people show up with oval spheroid and claim you should be able to use your hands. They then say that not letting them call their sport soccer is unfair and harmful. But ya know, we don't call that sport soccer, because it's different, we call it football.
---
As an aside, I think the proper way to handle the marriage debate would have been to remove any and all rights associated with the word, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. Churches are welcome to marry people all they desire (on both sides, gay or straight as they please according to their beliefs)
I would be upset if I used an analogy on HN and the first reply didn't include some form of 'your analogy is wrong' ;).
That's a reasonable argument except that gay civil unions were (are?) illegal in California so it is actively denying rights to people.
>As an aside, I think the proper way to handle the marriage debate would have been to remove any and all rights associated with the word, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. Churches are welcome to marry people all they desire (on both sides, gay or straight as they please according to their beliefs)
That could work. I don't see why churches need to have any bearing over the specific term 'marriage' though. Sure it has a religious basis but so do a huge number of things which have been appropriated for the current time. Let them call it a 'Christian marriage' if they want. I don't know, Australia is much less religious than the US so perhaps I lack some perspective.
That's a reasonable argument except that gay civil unions were (are?) illegal in California so it is actively denying rights to people.
>As an aside, I think the proper way to handle the marriage debate would have been to remove any and all rights associated with the word, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. Churches are welcome to marry people all they desire (on both sides, gay or straight as they please according to their beliefs)
That could work. I don't see why churches need to have any bearing over the specific term 'marriage' though. Sure it has a religious basis but so do a huge number of things which have been appropriated for the current time. Let them call it a 'Christian marriage' if they want. I don't know, Australia is much less religious than the US so perhaps I lack some perspective.
I think once the legal implications are removed, churches would lose their control over the word by default. It doesn't have meaning outside of the church at that point, and the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" So if gay people wanted to get married, no one could stop them.
--
Side note, California had (and still does, as far as I'm aware) domestic partnerships. From the wiki page one it:
It affords the couple "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and... the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses
--
Side note, California had (and still does, as far as I'm aware) domestic partnerships. From the wiki page one it:
It affords the couple "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and... the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses
What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness?
Supporters of slavery used the Bible to justify their beliefs. They did not believe it was about bigotry. They thought slavery was in fact providing economic opportunity to slaves, and they believed their own livelihood depended upon it. Supporters of slavery thought about it in economic and religious terms. If the CEO of my workplace believes in slavery but truly doesn't believe it is immoral, do I not have the right to speak out?
If you believe in slavery or nazism, that's fine. You're allowed to believe in those things. But we are allowed to express that you are wrong for holding those beliefs, and we can choose whether or not we support bigoted viewpoints by purchasing your products. Using one's right to free speech to oppose bigoted speech is not impeding anybody's rights.
Supporters of slavery used the Bible to justify their beliefs. They did not believe it was about bigotry. They thought slavery was in fact providing economic opportunity to slaves, and they believed their own livelihood depended upon it. Supporters of slavery thought about it in economic and religious terms. If the CEO of my workplace believes in slavery but truly doesn't believe it is immoral, do I not have the right to speak out?
If you believe in slavery or nazism, that's fine. You're allowed to believe in those things. But we are allowed to express that you are wrong for holding those beliefs, and we can choose whether or not we support bigoted viewpoints by purchasing your products. Using one's right to free speech to oppose bigoted speech is not impeding anybody's rights.
But does "opposing speech" have to include getting someone fired for something they did 6 years ago? Opposing speech in an open democratic society shouldn't have the effect of oppressing the speech of others -- even if such actions are technically legal. Otherwise, it becomes the "open democratic society for the people whose opinions I like."
Using one's right to free speech to oppose bigoted speech is not impeding anybody's rights.
This is technically true, but the way such an idea was applied in this case lacks something of the spirit of free speech in a truly tolerant and open society.
Using one's right to free speech to oppose bigoted speech is not impeding anybody's rights.
This is technically true, but the way such an idea was applied in this case lacks something of the spirit of free speech in a truly tolerant and open society.
Well, he didn't say he regrets his actions from 6 years ago. It's kind of like adultery. If I cheated on you 6 years ago but never apologized for it or expressed regret for it, should you feel comfortable with me today? What if I wasn't clear about whether I believe adultery is okay? What if I wasn't clear about whether I am still committing adultery?
The beliefs he holds are still current, as far as anyone can tell. If they aren't, I'm sure he would have said so.
This is technically true, but the way such an idea was applied in this case lacks something of the spirit of free speech in a truly tolerant and open society.
Yeah, some gay rights activists were a bit over the top and maybe should try a bit harder to understand the other side. But it is an emotional issue. If I feel that somebody is trying to use the might of the government to take away my rights, it's going to be difficult to sympathize with and understand why they would do that.
The beliefs he holds are still current, as far as anyone can tell. If they aren't, I'm sure he would have said so.
This is technically true, but the way such an idea was applied in this case lacks something of the spirit of free speech in a truly tolerant and open society.
Yeah, some gay rights activists were a bit over the top and maybe should try a bit harder to understand the other side. But it is an emotional issue. If I feel that somebody is trying to use the might of the government to take away my rights, it's going to be difficult to sympathize with and understand why they would do that.
What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness?
Well, if a person sincerely believed that black people should not be granted equal rights would you pick him as CEO? I'm pretty sure you won't; gay rights are the same thing.
I really admire the technical work Eich does, and benefit tremendously from it. However, his views on gay rights are disappointing.
Well, if a person sincerely believed that black people should not be granted equal rights would you pick him as CEO? I'm pretty sure you won't; gay rights are the same thing.
I really admire the technical work Eich does, and benefit tremendously from it. However, his views on gay rights are disappointing.
if a person sincerely believed that black people should not be granted equal rights
You got the analogy incorrect. What if that person sincerely believed that the policy preserved equal rights?
You got the analogy incorrect. What if that person sincerely believed that the policy preserved equal rights?
What specifically did he do recently?
He was interviewed. To be honest I don't know why he agreed to it as I don't see how he could have thought that steadfastly dodging the issue would improve the situation.
http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-...
I was on the fence as to whether he should be the public head of Mozilla before reading this (I disagree with him on the issue in question, but I suspect many hold beliefs that I don't agree with), but in that interview he just comes across as an arse. If the transcript is faithful to what was said, I'd say the interviewer gave him plenty of chances for reconciliation, and Eich refused to take them.
He was interviewed. To be honest I don't know why he agreed to it as I don't see how he could have thought that steadfastly dodging the issue would improve the situation.
http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-...
I was on the fence as to whether he should be the public head of Mozilla before reading this (I disagree with him on the issue in question, but I suspect many hold beliefs that I don't agree with), but in that interview he just comes across as an arse. If the transcript is faithful to what was said, I'd say the interviewer gave him plenty of chances for reconciliation, and Eich refused to take them.
He was not under any obligation to this "reconciliation." One could also argue that not answering in a situation like this is a principled stand on his right to privately hold a political opinion. In the US, it's legal to hold opinions that are "wrong." It should also be socially acceptable, otherwise we are creating a social climate where rational discussion becomes impossible.
Recently, he declined to comment on the issue or address whether his beliefs or motives had changed – which, to many people, meant that he stood behind his actions and genuinely believed that same-sex couples should be oppressed.
Hmmm. I think that if someone is potentially headed into the midst of some public controversy, and they decline to comment, that's pretty understandable.
The fact that so much energy has been devoted to this -- that 6 years ago some CEO made a donation to a political group people don't like -- indicates something broken in the prioritization of effort in US political life. Seems like they didn't go after Mr. Eich so much because of the severity of what he did, but rather that they were able to get to him. (Seriously -- Brendan Eich > the Koch Brothers?)
The fact that so much energy has been devoted to this -- that 6 years ago some CEO made a donation to a political group people don't like -- indicates something broken in the prioritization of effort in US political life. Seems like they didn't go after Mr. Eich so much because of the severity of what he did, but rather that they were able to get to him. (Seriously -- Brendan Eich > the Koch Brothers?)
They went after him on the principle of what he did (a principle he probably still stands behind), and would probably go after the Koch brothers if anyone had any leverage on them.
a principle he probably...
When a group starts throwing its power around on the basis of "probably," it's time to start wondering.
When a group starts throwing its power around on the basis of "probably," it's time to start wondering.
Almost everyone has bigoted opinions on one subject or another.
Suppose that a devout Muslim is hired by the Mozilla Foundation.
He says nothing of his beliefs in his interview. He wears jeans, T-shirts, and sneakers, and he looks like any other modern guy who happens to be from the Middle East or South Asia.
Should he be fired once it's discovered he's religious? Should he have been asked a bunch of probing questions--do you beat your wife? Do you believe homosexuals should be stoned to death? Do you consider Jews spawn of the devil? Should women who are raped be killed by their families? Are there times when suicide bombing is justified? These are all Koranic teachings held to be literally true by extremists, and put into practice by thousands of people every year.
You could ask similar questions of a fundamentalist Christian. You could ask a black man whether he refers to whites as "crackers" behind their back.
The fact is, no one's perfect, everyone has some baggage, and we all have to get along.
I think this whole Eich affair is a sad and nasty example of intolerance run amok. It doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong about his support for Prop 8. There is no right or wrong. There's only agree or disagree.
Diversity and tolerance are two way streets. You can't pretend to be tolerant, then fire people or demonize those who don't strictly adhere to your political beliefs. That's a genie that can't be put back in the bottle, once you release it.
Suppose that a devout Muslim is hired by the Mozilla Foundation.
He says nothing of his beliefs in his interview. He wears jeans, T-shirts, and sneakers, and he looks like any other modern guy who happens to be from the Middle East or South Asia.
Should he be fired once it's discovered he's religious? Should he have been asked a bunch of probing questions--do you beat your wife? Do you believe homosexuals should be stoned to death? Do you consider Jews spawn of the devil? Should women who are raped be killed by their families? Are there times when suicide bombing is justified? These are all Koranic teachings held to be literally true by extremists, and put into practice by thousands of people every year.
You could ask similar questions of a fundamentalist Christian. You could ask a black man whether he refers to whites as "crackers" behind their back.
The fact is, no one's perfect, everyone has some baggage, and we all have to get along.
I think this whole Eich affair is a sad and nasty example of intolerance run amok. It doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong about his support for Prop 8. There is no right or wrong. There's only agree or disagree.
Diversity and tolerance are two way streets. You can't pretend to be tolerant, then fire people or demonize those who don't strictly adhere to your political beliefs. That's a genie that can't be put back in the bottle, once you release it.
Diversity and tolerance are two way streets. You can't pretend to be tolerant, then fire people or demonize those who don't strictly adhere to your political beliefs. That's a genie that can't be put back in the bottle, once you release it.
You can, actually, and it's required. This is known as the paradox of tolerance.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tolerance
You can, actually, and it's required. This is known as the paradox of tolerance.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tolerance
OK, that's an interesting concept, and when I'm more awake, I'll have to read about it.
>I'm really struggling to decide where to come down on this issue. It absolutely is a bigoted opinion that he holds and essentially comes down to denying a group of people happiness for no good reason.
Still, it's his opinion. It's a bigoted opinion to think you can deny someone the right to have his bigoted opinion.
This is a serious matter. This opens the door to: You either think this exact same way and have these exact opinions, or you're a bad person and face the consequences.
It was a donation on his own name, not on Mozilla's behalf. It was a donation for lobbying against gay marriage. Pro-gay marriage people donated money too. They are even denying him to play by the rules they are playing by.
It's like playing basketball and you take off your hoop and demand the other team to play normally. It's not fair.
Still, it's his opinion. It's a bigoted opinion to think you can deny someone the right to have his bigoted opinion.
This is a serious matter. This opens the door to: You either think this exact same way and have these exact opinions, or you're a bad person and face the consequences.
It was a donation on his own name, not on Mozilla's behalf. It was a donation for lobbying against gay marriage. Pro-gay marriage people donated money too. They are even denying him to play by the rules they are playing by.
It's like playing basketball and you take off your hoop and demand the other team to play normally. It's not fair.
I don't have an issue with him holding that opinion (though some people obviously do). I just don't see why his opinion should be allowed to affect others. By contributing money to a campaign which aims to make gay marriage illegal he is actively hurting gay people. That, for me at least, is a problem.
It's more like "I think it should be illegal to play without a basketball hoop because then it doesn't make any sense to me, because basketball is defined as requiring a hoop".
It's more like "I think it should be illegal to play without a basketball hoop because then it doesn't make any sense to me, because basketball is defined as requiring a hoop".
So you'd work for someone who takes the proceeds of your work and spends it on attempting to attack your rights and freedoms, or the rights of your friends?
Once you vote or donate money, it's not a thought, and it's not speech. You're taking direct action to negatively impact the rights of another person.
This is completely relevant to the company a CEO represents, regardless of what the company does. All of the output from that company contributes to his ability to restrict rights.
Once you vote or donate money, it's not a thought, and it's not speech. You're taking direct action to negatively impact the rights of another person.
This is completely relevant to the company a CEO represents, regardless of what the company does. All of the output from that company contributes to his ability to restrict rights.
How can you call it "thoughtcrime" while immediately bringing up his donation? You may consider it minor, but clearly there's more to this than just thought.
"Donationcrime" would be considered the equivalent of "speechcrime" under the current Supreme Court's interpretation of the law.
Turns out you can get fired for your speech.
Yeah. If you say "my manager is a prick" and he finds out about it, prepare to get fired.
If your manager fires you because you said something he didn't like 6 years ago, you should have left of your own accord a long time ago. Also, the statement probably does apply after all, in that case.
Why is the donation relevant? Only because it revealed Eich's opinion on the issue. People have been focusing their attention on the fact that Eich believes that gay marriage should be illegal; if you do not think that should be called 'thoughtcrime' what exactly do you think it should be called?
Personally, the donation is key. It's a concrete effort put towards oppressing people.
More or less so than actually casting a vote?
I imagine $1000 ends up buying multiple votes.
Hey Mike. Help me come up with a term that's like "political prisoner" but without the imprisonment part.
"Political wealthy, skilled, healthy dude who still has a great life"?
Well, I guess he's a bad person for his political decisions, so it would be bad if you gave him an ounce of empathy about getting fired from a company he worked hard for for many years and obviously cared about.
And I guess firing people for small donations for political movements is the right thing to do. (Welcome to the American left wing, San Francisco chapter.)
So there you go. No harm or foul.
And I guess firing people for small donations for political movements is the right thing to do. (Welcome to the American left wing, San Francisco chapter.)
So there you go. No harm or foul.
People lose jobs all the time. Jobs they need to feed their family. They lose them for utterly trivial reasons.
Why should I bother with empathy toward someone I never met who is, right now, after being fired, still a wealthy and successful person?
I like your "San Francisco chapter" remark, since I don't live anywhere near.
Why should I bother with empathy toward someone I never met who is, right now, after being fired, still a wealthy and successful person?
I like your "San Francisco chapter" remark, since I don't live anywhere near.
"...just remember that political winds can shift and that in a few decades you might be the one receiving this treatment."
I know you mean this statement in a cautionary way, but to me that's unbelievably optimistic.
Historically, minority rights are political issues people are willing to kill for. Those who fight have to be willing to die for their cause.
Now the worst I can expect is to be forced to resign as CEO, to go on and play with problems that interest me and find a new job at leisure? Wonderful!
This is why I really don't get all the counter-uproar here. What happened to Mr. Each was basically nothing. He wasn't killed, or hurt, or blacklisted, or run out of town. He didn't even lose his CTO job, which he held for years after the controversial donation came to light. All that happened was that once he was made CEO, the public said this is a bad choice, and then the board basically said, you know what, you're right.
I know you mean this statement in a cautionary way, but to me that's unbelievably optimistic.
Historically, minority rights are political issues people are willing to kill for. Those who fight have to be willing to die for their cause.
Now the worst I can expect is to be forced to resign as CEO, to go on and play with problems that interest me and find a new job at leisure? Wonderful!
This is why I really don't get all the counter-uproar here. What happened to Mr. Each was basically nothing. He wasn't killed, or hurt, or blacklisted, or run out of town. He didn't even lose his CTO job, which he held for years after the controversial donation came to light. All that happened was that once he was made CEO, the public said this is a bad choice, and then the board basically said, you know what, you're right.
Keep in mind that a ban on gay marriage does not kill, physically injure, blacklist, or run anyone out of town either. If we can ascribe such importance to gay marriage despite all that, why should we be so willing to downplay the impact of ousting a man who has devoted years of his life to Mozilla from a leadership position there?
Who's downplaying the impact? The impact is small. It's not like he needed that job to feed his family. Better people lose more important (to them) jobs for worse reasons all the time.
This whole thing is a tempest in a teacup. I don't understand why people are so outraged at a $1000 donation from years ago (I don't think it's good, but it's not all that important), nor do I understand why people are so outraged that he doesn't get to be CEO because of it.
This whole thing is a tempest in a teacup. I don't understand why people are so outraged at a $1000 donation from years ago (I don't think it's good, but it's not all that important), nor do I understand why people are so outraged that he doesn't get to be CEO because of it.
Today, I learned just how trivial people believe gay rights are. I'm actually surprised by it. That's much sadder to me.
See, this comment is why we need to do a better job of keeping stories like this off the front page. There's nothing in the comment you replied to that indicates any cavalierness about "gay rights", and yet, there it is: the nasty comment accusing another HN user of bad faith. Right on cue.
Normally I'd agree that stories with a high political divisiveness content should be kept off the front page.
But this is a story about one of the most prominent people in tech and one of the most prominent companies in tech. In addition, it has ramifications for everyone who wants to run or own a company. So it very much belongs on the front page of HN.
The fact that a lot of the comments will be inflammatory is predictable, if sad, but that's no reason to try to sweep it under the rug. A different approach is needed for stories like this one that are otherwise perfect fits for top-of-HN material.
But this is a story about one of the most prominent people in tech and one of the most prominent companies in tech. In addition, it has ramifications for everyone who wants to run or own a company. So it very much belongs on the front page of HN.
The fact that a lot of the comments will be inflammatory is predictable, if sad, but that's no reason to try to sweep it under the rug. A different approach is needed for stories like this one that are otherwise perfect fits for top-of-HN material.
There's a story about Eich already on the front page. All the new story does is create new opportunities for ungroomed nasty threads.
> There's nothing in the comment you replied to that indicates any cavalierness about "gay rights"
You missed the point. The GP's comment, by dismissing gay right's relevance to mozilla, implicitly treated the matter in a "cavalier" manner.
Let's do a little find/replace to prove the point. Eich donated $1000 to the KKK. The GP notes that lynching niggers has nothing to do with the day to day operations of Mozilla, so what's the big deal. The parent is dismayed by how trivial black person's rights are considered by HN. What's your comment, tptacek?
You missed the point. The GP's comment, by dismissing gay right's relevance to mozilla, implicitly treated the matter in a "cavalier" manner.
Let's do a little find/replace to prove the point. Eich donated $1000 to the KKK. The GP notes that lynching niggers has nothing to do with the day to day operations of Mozilla, so what's the big deal. The parent is dismayed by how trivial black person's rights are considered by HN. What's your comment, tptacek?
You don't even know if you disagree with this person about marriage equality, but here we are talking about the KKK.
The gay rights issue is much more complicated than "oppose gay mariage == EVIL".
A huge number of people supported the proposition - a really huge number. Do you think they all were bad people? Do you think this particular, say, 30% of the population of California are bad people who should never run a company?
If you're not isolated in a liberal pocket of a huge city, you know and like and respect some of these people, and you think they can do a fantastic job at many things. And by the way, it seems to have been fine for Eich to be CTO, but end of the world for him to be CEO, explain that.
The truth is both sides are wrong. Marriage is defined between and man and a woman, that's just the meaning of the word applied to people. And it shouldn't mean anything to the law, there should be no tax implications, no child rights implications, nothing. Also, by the way, all religions are just not true.
Of course, thinking these things makes me EVIL to just about everyone. I'm not sad though, just really cynical. Politics is just one irrational side shouting at the other, saying that anyone who doubts their side for a second is evil. Anything logical doesn't matter until it happens to come into fashion. I just avoid it all to the greatest extent possible.
A huge number of people supported the proposition - a really huge number. Do you think they all were bad people? Do you think this particular, say, 30% of the population of California are bad people who should never run a company?
If you're not isolated in a liberal pocket of a huge city, you know and like and respect some of these people, and you think they can do a fantastic job at many things. And by the way, it seems to have been fine for Eich to be CTO, but end of the world for him to be CEO, explain that.
The truth is both sides are wrong. Marriage is defined between and man and a woman, that's just the meaning of the word applied to people. And it shouldn't mean anything to the law, there should be no tax implications, no child rights implications, nothing. Also, by the way, all religions are just not true.
Of course, thinking these things makes me EVIL to just about everyone. I'm not sad though, just really cynical. Politics is just one irrational side shouting at the other, saying that anyone who doubts their side for a second is evil. Anything logical doesn't matter until it happens to come into fashion. I just avoid it all to the greatest extent possible.
Most people are probably very much in favor of marriage equality, they just draw a different line than you about the role that personal opinions should play in an pluralistic workplace. Let's not conflate the two views here, there's been enough discussion around this to recognize that there are at least nuanced arguments on both sides that defy this binary classification.
Today I learned that some people believe gay rights are so important that they think anyone who disagrees with the preferred, tendentious public-policy perspective on gay rights IS A MONSTER incapable of treating people like human beings and destructive to an organization. Also, pluralism is dead.
... as if yelling back at him was going to make the thread any better.
Only the flag button on the story can save us now.
Only the flag button on the story can save us now.
Flag button? Make it a flag pin!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Today you learned that how? Are you unaware that there is a large portion of the population that think that gay marriage should not be recognized by the state?
It might be ok if they were just his beliefs, but he was actively working to restrict the rights of gay couples.
How would you feel if your CEO was actively working to get your rights restricted, regardless of if he didn't change any company policy.
How would you feel if your CEO was actively working to get your rights restricted, regardless of if he didn't change any company policy.
On the one hand I'm happy, because it will end the political controversy that has resulted in a blow against Mozilla, but on the other, I feel kind of bad. I mean sure, the guy is a massive prick for donating to support Prop 8, but that honestly is no where near as relevant to his position as CEO of a nonprofit software company as it was made to be. The guy has contributed a lot to his field, and based on my impressions, has been very valuable to Mozilla as an employee in the past. I fully believe that he would have been capable of moving Mozilla in the right direction had it not been for this scandal. With his resignation, Mozilla could end up with a CEO who hinders them instead.
Why does being against gay marriage make you a "massive prick". If people for gay marriage wasnt a minority it would be legal already, are you saying that the majority of the population are massive pricks, and should be ostracized from their jobs?
EDIT: here comes the leftist downvote brigade, the sad thing is I support gay marriage, you people should really grow a backbone.
EDIT: here comes the leftist downvote brigade, the sad thing is I support gay marriage, you people should really grow a backbone.
FYI, the radical American left's approach to public policy is that you should wage total warfare on everyone who disagrees with you, and attempt to punish them in any way possible. Deny them business, deny any notion that they are intelligent or decent human beings, et cetera. There is no room for pluralism, and intellectual honesty is of secondary importance at best.
In this case, Brendan Eich is a bad person. Clearly his donation means that he is incapable of interacting with anyone who is gay or any of his political enemies in a civil manner, and will go out of his way to marginalize their contributions to Mozilla. Therefore we should attempt to punish him by kicking him out of his job.
Postscript. No representations are herein made about the non-radical American left, other lefts, the American right, other rights, the existence or nonexistence of a radical center, the merits of any policy proposal of any group including the left (radical or otherwise), et cetera.
Post-postscript: See also this comment, wherein a HN user argues that we should start boycotting any company who employs anyone who voted for Prop 8. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7470443
In this case, Brendan Eich is a bad person. Clearly his donation means that he is incapable of interacting with anyone who is gay or any of his political enemies in a civil manner, and will go out of his way to marginalize their contributions to Mozilla. Therefore we should attempt to punish him by kicking him out of his job.
Postscript. No representations are herein made about the non-radical American left, other lefts, the American right, other rights, the existence or nonexistence of a radical center, the merits of any policy proposal of any group including the left (radical or otherwise), et cetera.
Post-postscript: See also this comment, wherein a HN user argues that we should start boycotting any company who employs anyone who voted for Prop 8. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7470443
I've been on the receiving end of this due to who my father is. When I was a kid, he was in charge of PR at a Bay Area oil refinery.
- Activists attacking him during city council meetings and pushing for his termination
- An orthodontist refused to take my brother and I on as patients because he disagreed with my father's job
- Various, err, packages left on our doorstep
- Unprofessionalism amongst some teachers, except when they needed a donation from the refinery. More than one snide comment.
Ironically, one of my best friends was the daughter of a lead activist in town. That led to some awkward moments getting dropped off to hang out.
- Activists attacking him during city council meetings and pushing for his termination
- An orthodontist refused to take my brother and I on as patients because he disagreed with my father's job
- Various, err, packages left on our doorstep
- Unprofessionalism amongst some teachers, except when they needed a donation from the refinery. More than one snide comment.
Ironically, one of my best friends was the daughter of a lead activist in town. That led to some awkward moments getting dropped off to hang out.
- An orthodontist refused to take my brother and I on as patients because he disagreed with my father's job
Sounds a lot like things some in the religious right do that the left objects to.
Sounds a lot like things some in the religious right do that the left objects to.
FYI, the radical American left's approach to public policy is that you should wage total warfare on everyone who disagrees with you, and attempt to punish them in any way possible. Deny them business, deny any notion that they are intelligent or decent human beings, et cetera. There is no room for pluralism, and intellectual honesty is of secondary importance at best.
Sounds a lot like the "open season" policy Scientology uses against anyone who is against Scientology.
Sounds a lot like the "open season" policy Scientology uses against anyone who is against Scientology.
There is a difference between not supporting gay marriage, and choosing to spend $1000 to actively support its prohibition with no personal return besides an increased probability of not seeing same sex couples married in the future. I find it sad that the opponents of gay marriage make a majority in the US, and I am happy to live in a state where they do not.
There isn't. If I spend any resources opposing something then I spent money however small doing so. If I drove my car to go vote against gay marriage then I spent resources directly and gave up alternative uses of my time to do so. I don't like that the political process is even involved in this but if it must be then debating issues has to be OK and retaliation against folks who disagreed with you in the past seems unhealthy if you want a free exchange of ideas.
I'd wager that the average anti-gay marriage voter in the US does not go to the poll for the purpose of voting to oppose gay marriage. They go to vote for an elected office, or because they were told that it's their duty to vote, and then they see a proposition on the ballot and tick whichever box is against gay marriage. They do this without much thought and based primarily on the views of the community they are immersed in. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
"There is a difference between not supporting gay marriage, and choosing to spend $1000 to actively support its prohibition."
Care to elaborate on what that difference is?
Care to elaborate on what that difference is?
[deleted]
I'd like to reiterate that Obama was against gay marriage during 2008 and California, the most liberal state ever, voted against it. A lot changes in 6 years(1).
I'm a democrat in support of gay marriage because citizenship, benefits, and filing taxes jointly should be granted regardless of sexuality.
But this witchhunt is ridiculous. However, a shitty language like js being necessary to deal with every day, that is unforgivable.
1 - The male-born transgender Fallon Fox is hailed as a gay hero for fighting again natural-born women. I don't agree with this (male bone structure, went through puberty as a male), and I definitely can't see this happening in 2008 for sure.
I'm a democrat in support of gay marriage because citizenship, benefits, and filing taxes jointly should be granted regardless of sexuality.
But this witchhunt is ridiculous. However, a shitty language like js being necessary to deal with every day, that is unforgivable.
1 - The male-born transgender Fallon Fox is hailed as a gay hero for fighting again natural-born women. I don't agree with this (male bone structure, went through puberty as a male), and I definitely can't see this happening in 2008 for sure.
I believe in gay marriage but I also believe in peoples right to oppose it, this whole thing is shameful.
I don't think that at any point Eich did not have the right to hold his opinion, just as people and companies have the right to choose not to associate with those who hold those views. Mozilla, and those (internal and external to Mozilla) who are calling for his resignation are not the government are not opressing him in any way.
Whether or not this is the right call for Mozilla is up for debate, but whether his rights were infringed certainly is not.
Whether or not this is the right call for Mozilla is up for debate, but whether his rights were infringed certainly is not.
"people and companies have the right to choose not to associate with those who hold those views" If his beliefs are religiously motivated, actually companies do not have the right to discriminate based on that. And imagine a modified version of that statement used to justify forcing out a gay CEO: "people and companies have the right to choose not to associate with people who believe in and act upon homosexual beliefs"
Fair agument, I did not think that through. Mozilla is, of course, required to comply with any and all anti-discriminiation laws which apply.
However, would I be correct in saying that his rights are not being infringed by having people (both internal and external to Mozilla) call for his resignation because of his beliefs, and his contributions to causes which are actively damaging to some of those in the community? Especially in the case of Mozilla, who rely heavily on volunteers, the opinions of those connected but not necessarily employed by Mozilla should be important.
However, would I be correct in saying that his rights are not being infringed by having people (both internal and external to Mozilla) call for his resignation because of his beliefs, and his contributions to causes which are actively damaging to some of those in the community? Especially in the case of Mozilla, who rely heavily on volunteers, the opinions of those connected but not necessarily employed by Mozilla should be important.
Clearly Eich did not have an actual right to hold his opinion, because he lost his job because of it!
You can campaign for change without the need to destroy those who disagree with you, on the face of it appears to be contradictory to what you are trying to achieve.
Thread for the announcement has been buried for some reason, but it's here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7526619
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7526619
I think that it's a shame that Eich had to resign. And I say this as someone who is very happy to see the winds changing in the US (and elsewhere), and who thinks that it's a good thing that gay marriage is becoming the norm and accepted law.
Mozilla is a non-profit. It's normal and expected for a non-profit to have officers and directors who agree with the stance of the non-profit. I would expect the head of a vegetarian organization to be a vegetarian. I would expect the member of a religious organization to be an observant member of that religion. And I would expect that the head of a labor union patronize union shops more than non-union ones.
So if Eich had taken a public stand against open-source software, or against Web standards, then it would be totally and utterly reasonable for him to resign, or to be forced out.
But Eich didn't take a stand against things that are at the core of Mozilla's mission. Rather, he had a personal opinion -- one which I don't share -- that used to be mainstream, and is increasingly seen as out of the mainstream, at least in large portions of the US and many other liberal democracies.
I think that it's unfair, and even a bit dangerous, for him to be forced out because of a personal political opinion.
If the next head of Mozilla gets up and says that he thinks it's OK for women to have abortions, would it be reasonable for them to be forced out? After all, there are many millions of people who feel that abortion is murder. (I don't concur with this opinion, but I know that it exists.)
If the next head of Mozilla donates money to anti-Obamacare ads, saying that things should go back to the way they were a few years ago, you could make a pretty good argument in favor of saying that this opinion will effectively condemn many people to death, or perhaps crippling poverty.
I don't think that we want this to happen. We don't want CEOs to be ousted because they have political opinions which reflect a minority.
I've often engaged in political discussions and debates with clients, some of whom hold opinions that I find completely and utterly wrong-headed, and perhaps even dangerous. But I'm not going to stop working with them because they hold different opinions. Rather, I'm going to be professional and work with them -- and perhaps even continue to debate them, so that they'll see my side of the argument.
Eich believes that gay marriage is wrong. I believe that he's wrong about that, and history is increasingly against his opinion. But his opinion doesn't have to do with Mozilla's mission.
By capitulating to public opinion over Eich's personal politics, Mozilla has opened Pandora's box. I worry that people who want to become the heads of major companies and organizations will keep their opinions and donations to themselves, for fear of eventually being condemned for those opinions. And that can only be bad for democracy and openness.
Mozilla is a non-profit. It's normal and expected for a non-profit to have officers and directors who agree with the stance of the non-profit. I would expect the head of a vegetarian organization to be a vegetarian. I would expect the member of a religious organization to be an observant member of that religion. And I would expect that the head of a labor union patronize union shops more than non-union ones.
So if Eich had taken a public stand against open-source software, or against Web standards, then it would be totally and utterly reasonable for him to resign, or to be forced out.
But Eich didn't take a stand against things that are at the core of Mozilla's mission. Rather, he had a personal opinion -- one which I don't share -- that used to be mainstream, and is increasingly seen as out of the mainstream, at least in large portions of the US and many other liberal democracies.
I think that it's unfair, and even a bit dangerous, for him to be forced out because of a personal political opinion.
If the next head of Mozilla gets up and says that he thinks it's OK for women to have abortions, would it be reasonable for them to be forced out? After all, there are many millions of people who feel that abortion is murder. (I don't concur with this opinion, but I know that it exists.)
If the next head of Mozilla donates money to anti-Obamacare ads, saying that things should go back to the way they were a few years ago, you could make a pretty good argument in favor of saying that this opinion will effectively condemn many people to death, or perhaps crippling poverty.
I don't think that we want this to happen. We don't want CEOs to be ousted because they have political opinions which reflect a minority.
I've often engaged in political discussions and debates with clients, some of whom hold opinions that I find completely and utterly wrong-headed, and perhaps even dangerous. But I'm not going to stop working with them because they hold different opinions. Rather, I'm going to be professional and work with them -- and perhaps even continue to debate them, so that they'll see my side of the argument.
Eich believes that gay marriage is wrong. I believe that he's wrong about that, and history is increasingly against his opinion. But his opinion doesn't have to do with Mozilla's mission.
By capitulating to public opinion over Eich's personal politics, Mozilla has opened Pandora's box. I worry that people who want to become the heads of major companies and organizations will keep their opinions and donations to themselves, for fear of eventually being condemned for those opinions. And that can only be bad for democracy and openness.
Amen to that. I think it's a real shame, too. I'm really pissed about it in the sense that here we are in an era where you are not allowed to have your opinions on anything anymore.
You are anti-gay ? You're a homophobic biggot and you should die. That's the gist of the message this sends. What if he is homophobic ? Who cares and what does that have anything to do with Mozilla ?
People demanding his head with the argument that it's intolerable not to tolerate difference don't know the disservice they did to their movements, because after all, they were intolerant for his difference too.
Now, you are not allowed to be "anti-gay". You are not even allowed not to be "pro-gay". You're not pro-gay ? What an ignorant biggot.
You're not even allowed to be without an opinion and not give a fuck about what people do with their bodies. Nooo ! You have to agree, or else you're homophobic.
Is this freedom of expression ? Is this the liberty these people are calling for ?
And this climate pushes you to say things like what you said, as a disclaimer, that you have gay friends, that you're not against it. It tells you a lot about the violence of their opinion.
What did he do that was illegal ? There was a project that some people supported and some were against. The pro-gay marriage lobbied and the anti-gay lobbied, or don't they have that right ?
Pro-gay donated money, too, and shook hands, and pulled strings, etc.
This is akin to (an online debate isn't one until Hitler is brought up) ban Mein Kampf under the argument that Hitler did what he did. What if I fucking want to read it ? Am I a Nazi for that ? What if I like his paintings ? Are we not allowed to think on our own, or are people shareholders of our very own, deepest beliefs ?
It's sad.
That's also like that Abercrombie and Fitch CEO who was attacked for what he did and say. What if I'm the CEO of a clothes company and I don't fat people to wear my shoes ? What the do you care ! Don't buy my clothes and case closed ! And the only reason you'd be pissed off is if you were fat, in which case you wouldn't be able to buy the frigging clothes in the first place, and you wouldn't buy them if they issued fat sized clothes anyway, so why the fuss.
It's a really pathetic moment, people.
You are anti-gay ? You're a homophobic biggot and you should die. That's the gist of the message this sends. What if he is homophobic ? Who cares and what does that have anything to do with Mozilla ?
People demanding his head with the argument that it's intolerable not to tolerate difference don't know the disservice they did to their movements, because after all, they were intolerant for his difference too.
Now, you are not allowed to be "anti-gay". You are not even allowed not to be "pro-gay". You're not pro-gay ? What an ignorant biggot.
You're not even allowed to be without an opinion and not give a fuck about what people do with their bodies. Nooo ! You have to agree, or else you're homophobic.
Is this freedom of expression ? Is this the liberty these people are calling for ?
And this climate pushes you to say things like what you said, as a disclaimer, that you have gay friends, that you're not against it. It tells you a lot about the violence of their opinion.
What did he do that was illegal ? There was a project that some people supported and some were against. The pro-gay marriage lobbied and the anti-gay lobbied, or don't they have that right ?
Pro-gay donated money, too, and shook hands, and pulled strings, etc.
This is akin to (an online debate isn't one until Hitler is brought up) ban Mein Kampf under the argument that Hitler did what he did. What if I fucking want to read it ? Am I a Nazi for that ? What if I like his paintings ? Are we not allowed to think on our own, or are people shareholders of our very own, deepest beliefs ?
It's sad.
That's also like that Abercrombie and Fitch CEO who was attacked for what he did and say. What if I'm the CEO of a clothes company and I don't fat people to wear my shoes ? What the do you care ! Don't buy my clothes and case closed ! And the only reason you'd be pissed off is if you were fat, in which case you wouldn't be able to buy the frigging clothes in the first place, and you wouldn't buy them if they issued fat sized clothes anyway, so why the fuss.
It's a really pathetic moment, people.
What? No one is talking about any restrictions of free speech. Nor any statements you've mentioned.
You're allowed to take any of those stances. Equally as you're allowed to bitch on the internet regarding the fact that he paid to revoke the rights of others. (And yes, they were deemed "constitutional rights" before being revoked.)
Unfortunately for Eich, his opinions currently seem to be on the wrong side of history.
You're allowed to take any of those stances. Equally as you're allowed to bitch on the internet regarding the fact that he paid to revoke the rights of others. (And yes, they were deemed "constitutional rights" before being revoked.)
Unfortunately for Eich, his opinions currently seem to be on the wrong side of history.
It is fairly simple -- you can be on the wrong side of an issue, that is fine. But, if you want to survive once public opinions shifts, you gotta shift too. Lots of politicians where against desegregation, when it was an "issue"... but then public opinion swayed clearly to one side and they had the political sense and expediency to change their (public) views.
Lots of really horrible racist, sexist things used to just be "opinions" (still are really) -- but now they are just considered by the masses unacceptable.
Eich was a victim of his own stubbornness and honesty. Could have defused the entire situation with a simple lie: "I changed my mind on that issue".
Lots of really horrible racist, sexist things used to just be "opinions" (still are really) -- but now they are just considered by the masses unacceptable.
Eich was a victim of his own stubbornness and honesty. Could have defused the entire situation with a simple lie: "I changed my mind on that issue".
I think it's sad that we've gotten to the point where we're telling people who remained consistent over time to "be more like the politicians, and just lie to suit the masses." It seems like we'd be complaining about that in a different post.
I'm not sure if being forced out is not the right option here.
For me there is a clear (somewhat) difference between a 'personal political opinion' and a personal opinion that directly touches human rights issues.
Taking it to a more extreme case just to illustrate. Would it be OK for a CEO to be forced out if he/she had clear racist opinions? I personally think so.
For me there is a clear (somewhat) difference between a 'personal political opinion' and a personal opinion that directly touches human rights issues.
Taking it to a more extreme case just to illustrate. Would it be OK for a CEO to be forced out if he/she had clear racist opinions? I personally think so.
If OKCupid are so against Brendan for his stance on gay marriage, they need to stop using javascript, for Brendan Eich invented javascript.
Let's play a game called Name that Fallacy!
from his earlier interview, it definitely seems like he was forced out, and resigning was just to save face.
Values and ideas may change, but seems like the witch-hunt will be around to stay...
Will he continue to be CTO at Mozilla?
No, he's leaving Mozilla https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-mission/
According to his blog it sounds like he's gone from Mozilla but will still be informally involved.
Mob rule wins the day. Sigh.
Would there be such outrage over Eich's resignation had he donated to KKK or an anti-Semite group? Just curious.
People change. I believe that he could be a good person in a role for Mozilla, despite being against gay marriage. The fact that he steps back from this important role both shows that either Mozilla or Brendan himself are sensitive to the topic. I would like to believe that Brendan has changed (some people tend to do that over the years) and resings as a sign of admitting that he was wrong about the gay marriage thing. This makes the whole situation kind of paradox - him stepping back indicates a kind of sensitivity that I would like in a leader for an organisation like this.
I'm getting the feeling he really did voluntarily step down to save the company. But if he wanted to fight it he might have a good case, as per California Labor Code - Section 1101:
>No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
>(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
>(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
>- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/LAB/1/d2/3/5/s1101#sthash...
The other paradox is that this might do more damage to Mozilla than if he stayed, the reaction is pretty split but a lot of people see this as an act of cowardice on Mozilla's part. I'm personally finding it hard to respect how they handled it.
>No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
>(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
>(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
>- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/LAB/1/d2/3/5/s1101#sthash...
The other paradox is that this might do more damage to Mozilla than if he stayed, the reaction is pretty split but a lot of people see this as an act of cowardice on Mozilla's part. I'm personally finding it hard to respect how they handled it.
But what the precedent of this event does, is drag our society one step deeper into the idea that groups pressuring companies to do (b) is "just how things are" in the US.
It's even worse than that, this isn't like Bill Maher getting fired from ABC for something he said on the air during a time of hysteria. This was something Eich did in private six years ago which he may or may not regret, depending on how you interpret his blog post. The precedent this sets is truly awful.
That is true, it all leaves a certain aftertaste. I am not sure what to make of all this.
A German saying goes like this: "The wiser mind gives in". But sometimes, that might leave an area ruled by idiots. So yeah, we (a hypothetical "us") won for accepting gay marriage but became bullies in the process.
A German saying goes like this: "The wiser mind gives in". But sometimes, that might leave an area ruled by idiots. So yeah, we (a hypothetical "us") won for accepting gay marriage but became bullies in the process.
It was not all that long ago that taking a pro-gay-rights position might have led to this kind of retaliation. If you are one of the people who rallied against Mozilla, just remember that political winds can shift and that in a few decades you might be the one receiving this treatment.