The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays(slate.com)
slate.com
The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays
http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/07/brendan_eich_homophobia_and_corporate_values_the_left_is_the_new_moral_majority.html
102 comments
You seem to know these men well!
Would they have said we should not have spoken out when a company we know and would like to trust advances a man demonstrably and unrepentantly against equal rights for gay people to its highest post? Or would nonviolent activism and speech asking that such a person not be allowed to represent that company, and that someone with such views should not be honored but repudiated, be "inimical" to their philosophies?
I don't presume to know what King or Gandhi would have done. But I don't think speaking out against a public figure who stands against equal rights is wrong.
Would they have said we should not have spoken out when a company we know and would like to trust advances a man demonstrably and unrepentantly against equal rights for gay people to its highest post? Or would nonviolent activism and speech asking that such a person not be allowed to represent that company, and that someone with such views should not be honored but repudiated, be "inimical" to their philosophies?
I don't presume to know what King or Gandhi would have done. But I don't think speaking out against a public figure who stands against equal rights is wrong.
I don't presume to know what King or Gandhi would have done. But I don't think speaking out against a public figure who stands against equal rights is wrong.
Sure, but going after someone for a political donation from 6 years ago after the issue has already been won seems vindictive and socially counterproductive. Can you point me to something that MLK, Mandela, or Gandhi did or said that would indicate they'd do something like that? I can point to many examples of words and actions of theirs that would suggest they'd advocate for a more magnanimous path.
Sure, but going after someone for a political donation from 6 years ago after the issue has already been won seems vindictive and socially counterproductive. Can you point me to something that MLK, Mandela, or Gandhi did or said that would indicate they'd do something like that? I can point to many examples of words and actions of theirs that would suggest they'd advocate for a more magnanimous path.
Neither the timeline of Eich's donation nor the outcome of the prop 8 fight is relevant. Eich has given no indication that he feels differently now than he did then. In other words, he has done nothing to assuage the suspicion that his personal convictions are in radical opposition to some of the most important cultural aims of the Mozilla organization.
I'm sad for Mozilla because Eich is a great and rare talent.
I'm sad for Mozilla because Eich is a great and rare talent.
Neither the timeline of Eich's donation nor the outcome of the prop 8 fight is relevant.
Such an absolute position would be reasonable if the action in question had some sort of permanent or destructive effect. It's entirely unreasonable to treat a political donation or a privately held political belief as if it were a crime with a permanent or perniciously destructive effect.
In other words, he has done nothing to assuage the suspicion that his personal convictions are in radical opposition to some of the most important cultural aims of the Mozilla organization.
I can understand this position as well. However, it seems dangerous for us to have a society where we have to be constantly be "saying the right things" or punitive actions are to be taken against us. This does not sound like a free society. Granted, as CEO of Mozilla, he is not in the same position as a typical private citizen, but the principles should still apply. "In radical opposition to some of the most important cultural aims" could just as well be rewritten as "Having political views we don't like."
Such an absolute position would be reasonable if the action in question had some sort of permanent or destructive effect. It's entirely unreasonable to treat a political donation or a privately held political belief as if it were a crime with a permanent or perniciously destructive effect.
In other words, he has done nothing to assuage the suspicion that his personal convictions are in radical opposition to some of the most important cultural aims of the Mozilla organization.
I can understand this position as well. However, it seems dangerous for us to have a society where we have to be constantly be "saying the right things" or punitive actions are to be taken against us. This does not sound like a free society. Granted, as CEO of Mozilla, he is not in the same position as a typical private citizen, but the principles should still apply. "In radical opposition to some of the most important cultural aims" could just as well be rewritten as "Having political views we don't like."
Such an absolute position would be reasonable if the action in question had some sort of permanent or destructive effect. It's entirely unreasonable to treat a political donation or a privately held political belief as if it were a crime with a permanent of perniciously destructive effect.
Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment that removed civil rights from a historically oppressed group. That it has been since overturned is largely to the credit of the activists who opposed it before, during, and after it passed.
I can understand this position as well. However, it seems dangerous for us to have a society where we have to be constantly be "saying the right things" or punitive actions are to be taken against us. This does not sound like a free society. Granted, as CEO of Mozilla, he is not in the same position as a typical private citizen, but the principles should still apply. "In radical opposition to some of the most important cultural aims" could just as well be rewritten as "Having political views we don't like."
There is pressure to not have beliefs and practice that are harmful to others. You are free to believe and say whatever you like, but if what you believe and say is "black and white people should not intermarry" or "muslims should be rounded up into internment camps" you are going to face heavy consequences. If you feel you must walk on eggshells because of your views on gay marriage, you may be out of sync with social norms, just as segregationists were in the 60s and proponents of criminalization of homosexuality are today.
"Political views we don't like" - political "views" in the form of many dollars that were intended to and successfully deprived a group of a civil right, and "we" in the form of a vocal, nonviolent nonmajority speaking out online. If you think that doesn't sound like a free society, I think you may not very familiar with what actual non-free societies look like.
Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment that removed civil rights from a historically oppressed group. That it has been since overturned is largely to the credit of the activists who opposed it before, during, and after it passed.
I can understand this position as well. However, it seems dangerous for us to have a society where we have to be constantly be "saying the right things" or punitive actions are to be taken against us. This does not sound like a free society. Granted, as CEO of Mozilla, he is not in the same position as a typical private citizen, but the principles should still apply. "In radical opposition to some of the most important cultural aims" could just as well be rewritten as "Having political views we don't like."
There is pressure to not have beliefs and practice that are harmful to others. You are free to believe and say whatever you like, but if what you believe and say is "black and white people should not intermarry" or "muslims should be rounded up into internment camps" you are going to face heavy consequences. If you feel you must walk on eggshells because of your views on gay marriage, you may be out of sync with social norms, just as segregationists were in the 60s and proponents of criminalization of homosexuality are today.
"Political views we don't like" - political "views" in the form of many dollars that were intended to and successfully deprived a group of a civil right, and "we" in the form of a vocal, nonviolent nonmajority speaking out online. If you think that doesn't sound like a free society, I think you may not very familiar with what actual non-free societies look like.
a vocal, nonviolent nonmajority speaking out online. If you think that doesn't sound like a free society, I think you may not very familiar with what actual non-free societies look like.
Everything is contextual, and you are right, that in a broader context, all of the people discussed, Brendan Eich included, have it pretty good in the global scheme of things.
However, non-free societies look like this:
You are expected to hew to certain viewpoints. It is not enough for you to just be quiet, you have to actively and enthusiastically say and write words supporting the "right" opinion. If you have ever expressed the "wrong" opinion in the past, then this is enough to bring punitive action against you, regardless of the current circumstances, though you might win redemption if you make a loud and public declaration of contrition. Only the expression of a "wrong" opinion is enough for punishment -- no concrete act is required, only the apparent possibility of it. The historical fact of your actual behavior is irrelevant to the above.
As an exercise, the reader can come up with their own examples for groups and governments that enacted behaviors and policies like the above. By doing so, even in a smaller context, one actively promotes social dynamics that inhibit open and free dissent and exchange of ideas. (Also note, that the previous paragraph applies just as well to how men were expected to express their status as heterosexual.)
Political power is always contextual, as is the human social behavior on which it is based. If you are in a context where you have power, and someone is telling you something you don't like to hear, well guess what: Someone is speaking truth to power, and it isn't you. (At least, in their own POV. It's this whole problem of POV and the unreasonable position of adjudicator of correct speech that underlies the notion of free speech.)
Everything is contextual, and you are right, that in a broader context, all of the people discussed, Brendan Eich included, have it pretty good in the global scheme of things.
However, non-free societies look like this:
You are expected to hew to certain viewpoints. It is not enough for you to just be quiet, you have to actively and enthusiastically say and write words supporting the "right" opinion. If you have ever expressed the "wrong" opinion in the past, then this is enough to bring punitive action against you, regardless of the current circumstances, though you might win redemption if you make a loud and public declaration of contrition. Only the expression of a "wrong" opinion is enough for punishment -- no concrete act is required, only the apparent possibility of it. The historical fact of your actual behavior is irrelevant to the above.
As an exercise, the reader can come up with their own examples for groups and governments that enacted behaviors and policies like the above. By doing so, even in a smaller context, one actively promotes social dynamics that inhibit open and free dissent and exchange of ideas. (Also note, that the previous paragraph applies just as well to how men were expected to express their status as heterosexual.)
Political power is always contextual, as is the human social behavior on which it is based. If you are in a context where you have power, and someone is telling you something you don't like to hear, well guess what: Someone is speaking truth to power, and it isn't you. (At least, in their own POV. It's this whole problem of POV and the unreasonable position of adjudicator of correct speech that underlies the notion of free speech.)
If that's what "non-free societies look like", then what we're dealing with is not a "non-free society" (at least, in this dimension):
'You are expected to hew to certain viewpoints. It is not enough for you to just be quiet, you have to actively and enthusiastically say and write words supporting the "right" opinion.'
Show me an example of someone being ousted for remaining quiet.
'Only the expression of a "wrong" opinion is enough for punishment -- no concrete act is required, only the apparent possibility of it.'
A group of people prevented couples that wanted to be married from being married. That is clearly an act. Donation of $1000 toward those ends is not simply holding an opinion.
"The historical fact of your actual behavior is irrelevant to the above."
Again, there was "actual behavior", as a matter of "historical fact".
On the following point the world does look something like you describe (probably too much so):
'If you have ever expressed the "wrong" opinion in the past, then this is enough to bring punitive action against you, regardless of the current circumstances.'
But similarity on one point out of 4 is hardly a strong case.
'You are expected to hew to certain viewpoints. It is not enough for you to just be quiet, you have to actively and enthusiastically say and write words supporting the "right" opinion.'
Show me an example of someone being ousted for remaining quiet.
'Only the expression of a "wrong" opinion is enough for punishment -- no concrete act is required, only the apparent possibility of it.'
A group of people prevented couples that wanted to be married from being married. That is clearly an act. Donation of $1000 toward those ends is not simply holding an opinion.
"The historical fact of your actual behavior is irrelevant to the above."
Again, there was "actual behavior", as a matter of "historical fact".
On the following point the world does look something like you describe (probably too much so):
'If you have ever expressed the "wrong" opinion in the past, then this is enough to bring punitive action against you, regardless of the current circumstances.'
But similarity on one point out of 4 is hardly a strong case.
Show me an example of someone being ousted for remaining quiet.
In this situation, Brendan Eich would probably have been better served by saying less, though that would probably not have changed the outcome. Is your position that weak that you are really reduced to this degree of nitpicking?
A group of people prevented couples that wanted to be married from being married. That is clearly an act.
In the same manner that speaking is an 'act.' Imagine a world where the worst villains would donate $1000 to a PAC supporting their view, then quietly accept the outcome and get on with their work. That world would be a utopia compared to this one.
Again, there was "actual behavior", as a matter of "historical fact".
This entire line of argument only makes sense if you believe that there is a clear "right" and "wrong" and that you are in a perfect position to judge which is which. In a free society, there is no one in such a position, and those who value a free society would be unwise to advocate the punishment of such expression, even if it's technically legal and resembles "civil actions" of the past.
Seriously, watch some documentaries about repressive regimes. Talk to people who understand these principles and have lived in such places. There is a compelling reason why free societies should tolerate unpopular opinions, and why such tolerance should go above the minimum required by the law.
But similarity on one point out of 4 is hardly a strong case.
I think your nitpicking speaks for itself for those who are mindful of principles and will appear as some kind of stirring justification to those who are of the mind "but we're right and they're wrong."
In this situation, Brendan Eich would probably have been better served by saying less, though that would probably not have changed the outcome. Is your position that weak that you are really reduced to this degree of nitpicking?
A group of people prevented couples that wanted to be married from being married. That is clearly an act.
In the same manner that speaking is an 'act.' Imagine a world where the worst villains would donate $1000 to a PAC supporting their view, then quietly accept the outcome and get on with their work. That world would be a utopia compared to this one.
Again, there was "actual behavior", as a matter of "historical fact".
This entire line of argument only makes sense if you believe that there is a clear "right" and "wrong" and that you are in a perfect position to judge which is which. In a free society, there is no one in such a position, and those who value a free society would be unwise to advocate the punishment of such expression, even if it's technically legal and resembles "civil actions" of the past.
Seriously, watch some documentaries about repressive regimes. Talk to people who understand these principles and have lived in such places. There is a compelling reason why free societies should tolerate unpopular opinions, and why such tolerance should go above the minimum required by the law.
But similarity on one point out of 4 is hardly a strong case.
I think your nitpicking speaks for itself for those who are mindful of principles and will appear as some kind of stirring justification to those who are of the mind "but we're right and they're wrong."
"[Preventing people from being married is an act i]n the same manner that speaking is an 'act.'"
I'm done here. You clearly have no connection to reality, and this is distracting from more important matters.
I'm done here. You clearly have no connection to reality, and this is distracting from more important matters.
I'm done here. You clearly have no connection to reality, and this is distracting from more important matters.
If you are so assured of the rightness of your position and the wrongness of the other's position, that you are entitled to take actions of any degree of severity, then you have lost connection to reality, as have so many others in history. You would be well advised to never be that self righteous.
I have been racially harassed, subject to hate speech, in a situation where the police got involved. There's simply no equating Brendan Eich and his political donation with a situation and actions like that. If you can't deal with others thinking the actions taken against him are out of proportion and have the feeling of a witch-hunt because your position is so evidently right and his is so evidently wrong then you are again the one who has lost connection to reality, as well as having lost track of the meaning of a pluralistic society. A just, pluralistic society will treat even its dissenting members with justice and tolerance.
If past political donations are an acceptable justification for "open season" on others, six years after the fact, we have no hope as an open democratic society.
If you are so assured of the rightness of your position and the wrongness of the other's position, that you are entitled to take actions of any degree of severity, then you have lost connection to reality, as have so many others in history. You would be well advised to never be that self righteous.
I have been racially harassed, subject to hate speech, in a situation where the police got involved. There's simply no equating Brendan Eich and his political donation with a situation and actions like that. If you can't deal with others thinking the actions taken against him are out of proportion and have the feeling of a witch-hunt because your position is so evidently right and his is so evidently wrong then you are again the one who has lost connection to reality, as well as having lost track of the meaning of a pluralistic society. A just, pluralistic society will treat even its dissenting members with justice and tolerance.
If past political donations are an acceptable justification for "open season" on others, six years after the fact, we have no hope as an open democratic society.
The sum total of anyone's action here is 1) speech, and 2) deciding not to do business with someone. I'm not saying it's necessarily the correct decision, but painting it as an assumption that we are "entitled to take actions of any degree of severity" just reinforces my point. Anyway, I'm literally not going to respond to a thing below this comment, however crazy or sensible it gets.
The lesson Mozilla learned here is that the angry Internet mob can get whatever it wants. It doesn't really matter which side of history the mob is on. The lesson that other boards learned with this is not 'hire socially-conscious people', but 'keep your head down and maintain the status quo'.
Fifty years ago a similar uproar would have developed if a company hired a black CEO. The press release announcing his removal a week later would have been the same, some fluff words about being unable to effectively lead when he's spending all his time dealing with this.
Fifty years ago a similar uproar would have developed if a company hired a black CEO. The press release announcing his removal a week later would have been the same, some fluff words about being unable to effectively lead when he's spending all his time dealing with this.
Indeed. I don't agree with Eich's personal views on gay marriage, but I'm kind of disappointed that everybody seems to be cool with getting people fired because they stood up for their personal views.
People are comfortable with his firing because they feel his views are "wrong", but pretty much all progressive views, by definition, started out as "wrong" as well...
People are comfortable with his firing because they feel his views are "wrong", but pretty much all progressive views, by definition, started out as "wrong" as well...
What if it came out that his personal views (and political donations, more importantly) were against interracial marriage or women's suffrage? No one would bat an eye at his losing his position as CEO (voluntarily or not). Everyone is just shocked because our society is finally starting to recognize anti-gay bigotry as abhorrent as racism or sexism.
> I don't agree with Eich's personal views on gay marriage, but I'm kind of disappointed that everybody seems to be cool with getting people fired because they stood up for their personal views.
No one got fired here. Brendan Eich quit a job that, from all reports, he was dubious about taking from day one.
No one got fired here. Brendan Eich quit a job that, from all reports, he was dubious about taking from day one.
[deleted]
I don't understand why the "angry internet mob" is any different from thousands of people boycotting a company for unfair labor practices, or doing a sit-in somewhere, or picketing? How is the internet mob different from these other forms of nonviolent political activism?
It's worthy activism to repeal unjust laws, or help to pass other laws to protect people's rights. It's something else to merely attack the people you don't like, no matter how noble your justification is.
A more accurate description of this action would be as a boycott of a company with fair labor practices, for an exercise of free speech the CEO made 6 years ago. Does that even make sense? It sounds like a gratuitous witch-hunt to me.
If one's activism is going to further the notion of tolerance and social justice, then it had better hew to the principles of tolerance and social justice. Merely resembling other civil rights actions on the surface is just "Cargo Cult Activism."
A more accurate description of this action would be as a boycott of a company with fair labor practices, for an exercise of free speech the CEO made 6 years ago. Does that even make sense? It sounds like a gratuitous witch-hunt to me.
If one's activism is going to further the notion of tolerance and social justice, then it had better hew to the principles of tolerance and social justice. Merely resembling other civil rights actions on the surface is just "Cargo Cult Activism."
Based upon the thoughtless drivel that I see spewed across Twitter, I don't see how it could be considered political activism of any sort. It takes no effort and no risk to shout something on Twitter.
It takes little effort or risk to walk down the street and shout, either. What matters is that the people in both situations are expressing their support for one side of an issue. That it doesn't meet your standards for intelligibility isn't really material. A vote is not eloquent, but it is a powerful statement when millions do it at once and with one object. It is the same for public demonstration.
A vote is not eloquent, but it is a powerful statement when millions do it at once and with one object. It is the same for public demonstration.
Just because something is a vote or a demonstration doesn't make it good or just. Just because millions say or do something doesn't make it good or just either. It's justice when what the millions say or do is just because they are applying first principles of justice. If you look at history, when millions have enacted injustice, every single time they also had flowery-sounding justifications for it. Also, if you dig deep enough, along with any injustice, you will find some kind of double standard accompanied by a notion that amounts to "but we're right and they're wrong."
Just because something is a vote or a demonstration doesn't make it good or just. Just because millions say or do something doesn't make it good or just either. It's justice when what the millions say or do is just because they are applying first principles of justice. If you look at history, when millions have enacted injustice, every single time they also had flowery-sounding justifications for it. Also, if you dig deep enough, along with any injustice, you will find some kind of double standard accompanied by a notion that amounts to "but we're right and they're wrong."
My point was that conservatives can do witch hunts too. Mozilla gave every indication that it just gave up when the pressure overcame them, rather than actually deciding this on its merits, bad publicity be damned.
The lesson Mozilla learned here is that the angry Internet mob can get whatever it wants.
The typical angry Internet mob is, frankly, stupid, ill informed, incapable of clear thought, not sophisticated enough to appreciate detail and nuance, and unable to comprehend that principles of justice and tolerance apply evenly to all. The typical angry Internet mob has most of the disgusting qualities of the people who bullied me in school. It's just that now, they label themselves as "geeks" and "nerds."
The Japanese have a saying that it's only through suffering that one truly comes to understand kindness. Many geeks and nerds used to value principles and a sense of scientific/technical rigor and honor, which they deeply understood because they knew firsthand what it means to be subject to the power of groups lacking such principles.
There's a famous Feynmann story about how he discovered that Brazilian science students were able to recite the book-knowledge about the polarization of light but were unable to apply the basic physics to actual examples. The typical Bay Area 20-something Computer Science/Programmer geek will now stare at you blankly when you mention "frequency response." (or even prejudicially flip the idiot bit on you because you said something "audiophile" sounding) However, almost all of them will tell you enthusiastically about studying Fourier Transforms.
The typical angry Internet mob is, frankly, stupid, ill informed, incapable of clear thought, not sophisticated enough to appreciate detail and nuance, and unable to comprehend that principles of justice and tolerance apply evenly to all. The typical angry Internet mob has most of the disgusting qualities of the people who bullied me in school. It's just that now, they label themselves as "geeks" and "nerds."
The Japanese have a saying that it's only through suffering that one truly comes to understand kindness. Many geeks and nerds used to value principles and a sense of scientific/technical rigor and honor, which they deeply understood because they knew firsthand what it means to be subject to the power of groups lacking such principles.
There's a famous Feynmann story about how he discovered that Brazilian science students were able to recite the book-knowledge about the polarization of light but were unable to apply the basic physics to actual examples. The typical Bay Area 20-something Computer Science/Programmer geek will now stare at you blankly when you mention "frequency response." (or even prejudicially flip the idiot bit on you because you said something "audiophile" sounding) However, almost all of them will tell you enthusiastically about studying Fourier Transforms.
From the start I was unconfortable with the idea of firing or demoting someone who had worked 15+ years in an organization without any related issues raised before.
And now I'm appalled by all these justifications while nobody seems to really discuss the huge technical loss. Maybe it's my engineering side speaking but I'm outraged to see such a great engineer forced to leave by people who in the end for the most part don't really care about Mozilla and will soon go to the next cause to defend. Meanwhile Mozilla has lost a bit of its soul and a part of its mind. The outcome is just sad.
And now I'm appalled by all these justifications while nobody seems to really discuss the huge technical loss. Maybe it's my engineering side speaking but I'm outraged to see such a great engineer forced to leave by people who in the end for the most part don't really care about Mozilla and will soon go to the next cause to defend. Meanwhile Mozilla has lost a bit of its soul and a part of its mind. The outcome is just sad.
will soon go to the next cause to defend
Just who is being "defended" here? No free society should take offense to a nonviolent political stand, even unpopular ones. Going after someone like this is not defense. It's attack.
Just who is being "defended" here? No free society should take offense to a nonviolent political stand, even unpopular ones. Going after someone like this is not defense. It's attack.
Wait, why is it defense for him to speak in favor, and attack for others to speak against? Don't mass speech and boycotts constitute a "nonviolent political stand"?
I think a lot of people got their first taste of politics through cable news and never learned the older, more useful vocabulary with words like "disagree" and "challenge."
why is it defense for him to speak in favor
Wow. Reading comprehension, please.
Wow. Reading comprehension, please.
Doesn't placing "such a great engineer" in a CEO role already mean he's not being applied to engineering tasks?
Managing engineers with a good understanding of what they do is a very valuable skill.
Which he was already doing, as CTO.
I think we should be very wary of mainstream media coverage (and yes, Slate is mainstream media here) of this issue, because writers like William Saletan know relatively little about the specifics of Mozilla, technology or the personalities involved. This article ignores the specifics of the case and places it entirely within existing "culture war" political narratives. It's designed to present the story to people without having to actually tell them anything they don't already know.
A much better attempt at the same basic argument (that it's a shame Eich was forced out) can be found here: https://medium.com/p/7645a4bf8a2
Given the tools at our disposal and the massive number of people from the tech community who blog, there's really no need to rely on Slate to tell us what to think here.
A much better attempt at the same basic argument (that it's a shame Eich was forced out) can be found here: https://medium.com/p/7645a4bf8a2
Given the tools at our disposal and the massive number of people from the tech community who blog, there's really no need to rely on Slate to tell us what to think here.
While I think David Flanagan's essay is excellent, that in no way detracts from Slate's coverage. And this deserves to be placed in the context of the broader "culture war" -- no part of this fiasco turned on any technical or browser-specific details.
Thanks I had missed that. The crux of the issue, for me:
Most (or perhaps all) of the Mozillians who tweeted this were employed by the Mozilla Foundation, not the Mozilla Corporation which means that they report to the executive director of the foundation and not to the CEO. As foundation employees, they did not share the same org chart as Brendan.
I didn't realize the foundation had so many employees.
Most (or perhaps all) of the Mozillians who tweeted this were employed by the Mozilla Foundation, not the Mozilla Corporation which means that they report to the executive director of the foundation and not to the CEO. As foundation employees, they did not share the same org chart as Brendan.
I didn't realize the foundation had so many employees.
So, Mozilla is a three headed monster:
> Executive Chairwoman, Mozilla Foundation (Mitchell Baker)
> Executive Director, Mozilla Foundation (Mark Surman)
> CEO Mozilla Corporation (New position, 2008)
Mark Surman's employees using @mozilla handles were calling for the resignation of a competing CEO?
Am i reading this right? In other words this was under political air-cover.
The Mozilla Foundation now focuses solely on governance and policy issues...
The corporate governance here actually seems like a problem.
The new CEO and the New COO of @mozilla are going to look at this with ???
> Executive Chairwoman, Mozilla Foundation (Mitchell Baker)
> Executive Director, Mozilla Foundation (Mark Surman)
> CEO Mozilla Corporation (New position, 2008)
Mark Surman's employees using @mozilla handles were calling for the resignation of a competing CEO?
Am i reading this right? In other words this was under political air-cover.
The Mozilla Foundation now focuses solely on governance and policy issues...
The corporate governance here actually seems like a problem.
The new CEO and the New COO of @mozilla are going to look at this with ???
The Mozilla Foundation owns Mozilla Corporation, and each organization has its own Board of Directors.
Yes, the Foundation CEO basically signed off on a PR stunt very damaging to Mozilla:
Mozilla Foundation Executive Director Mark Surman issued a statement to Ars in response to employees speaking out against Eich's hiring. "Our culture of openness extends to letting our staff and community be candid about their views on Mozilla’s direction," Surman wrote. "We're proud of that inclusiveness and how it distinguishes Mozilla from most organizations."
So, the split boards governance is a problem. Baker is the Chair and head of the project. She created the Corp CEO job and led the hiring process. She's the Chair of both Boards.
Its slightly awkward for a company to use its political activsm against itself in this way. It's even more awkward to manipulate the media to do it in public. Its even triply awkward that it was aknowleged publicly (usually indicates legal signed off on it).
Mozilla Foundation Executive Director Mark Surman issued a statement to Ars in response to employees speaking out against Eich's hiring. "Our culture of openness extends to letting our staff and community be candid about their views on Mozilla’s direction," Surman wrote. "We're proud of that inclusiveness and how it distinguishes Mozilla from most organizations."
So, the split boards governance is a problem. Baker is the Chair and head of the project. She created the Corp CEO job and led the hiring process. She's the Chair of both Boards.
Its slightly awkward for a company to use its political activsm against itself in this way. It's even more awkward to manipulate the media to do it in public. Its even triply awkward that it was aknowleged publicly (usually indicates legal signed off on it).
Each situation is unique, but leaning too hard on that fact starts to resemble "It's different when I [Mozilla] do it."
there's really no need to rely on Slate to tell us what to think here.
It's OK, good even, to stick your ear outside the tech bubble. But you shouldn't let anyone - in or out - tell you what to think. Everyone has ideas, synthesize them with a heavy scoop of context. You should be as skeptical of tech-bubble sources as you are mainstream ones, just in some different ways for different reasons.
there's really no need to rely on Slate to tell us what to think here.
It's OK, good even, to stick your ear outside the tech bubble. But you shouldn't let anyone - in or out - tell you what to think. Everyone has ideas, synthesize them with a heavy scoop of context. You should be as skeptical of tech-bubble sources as you are mainstream ones, just in some different ways for different reasons.
> It used to be social conservatives who stood for the idea that companies could and should fire employees based on the “values” and “community standards” of their “employees, business partners and customers.” Now it’s liberals.
Uh, pretty sure social conservatives far and wide are still wholly in favor of discriminating against homosexuals. We're decades early on this being a case of the persecuted becoming the persecutors.
Uh, pretty sure social conservatives far and wide are still wholly in favor of discriminating against homosexuals. We're decades early on this being a case of the persecuted becoming the persecutors.
The problem is that, now, it becomes more difficult to argue that people shouldn't be fired because of their opinions about sexual preferences.
If someone donates money to support a bill to make it illegal for straight people to marry, then the comparison might be justified. Until then, equating a private, in-born sexual preference (or opinions of such) with attempting to enshrine bigotry in the law is really stretching things.
Were people ever arguing that, or were they arguing that people shouldn't be fired because of their sexual preferences? Are racial minorities being fired because of their opinions about race?
Racial minorities being fired because of their opinion about race - ie, their opinion that they should have the same treatments are whites - was very common as far as I know. To make a different example, the new laws in Russia aren't against "being gay", they are against those who argue for the rights of gays.
I'm sure many supporters of Brendan Eich's ouster are completely sincere, but it's difficult to explain the intensity of their feelings on this issue. It can't be as simple as "civil rights" and "marriage equality"; for example, (first) cousin marriage is important to many groups—indeed, in Islam cousin marriage is not only allowed, it's often preferred [1]—but it is illegal in most states [2]. And yet, I rarely see advocates of "marriage equality" get all lathered up over this issue. Are advocates of "marriage equality" in favor of legalizing cousin marriage? If not, why not? If so, why have they not worked harder to achieve it?
I see no way to resolve this paradox from within the context of progressive ideology, but it's trivial to explain once you view it from the outside. As the example of cousin marriage shows, the behavior of Eich's purgers is not consistent with mere "civil rights" and "marriage equality", but it is consistent with signaling tribal membership, seizing political power, and smashing their enemies.
As it happens, right now gay marriage is an effective club with which progressives can beat conservatives. At some point, this may also be the case for cousin marriage—I can easily imagine opponents of cousin marriage someday being branded "Islamophobes", just as today opponents of gay marriage are branded "homophobes". But I predict that this will happen if, and only if, it serves progressive political ends.
[1]: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islam
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_Unit...
I see no way to resolve this paradox from within the context of progressive ideology, but it's trivial to explain once you view it from the outside. As the example of cousin marriage shows, the behavior of Eich's purgers is not consistent with mere "civil rights" and "marriage equality", but it is consistent with signaling tribal membership, seizing political power, and smashing their enemies.
As it happens, right now gay marriage is an effective club with which progressives can beat conservatives. At some point, this may also be the case for cousin marriage—I can easily imagine opponents of cousin marriage someday being branded "Islamophobes", just as today opponents of gay marriage are branded "homophobes". But I predict that this will happen if, and only if, it serves progressive political ends.
[1]: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islam
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_Unit...
Even if I don't agree with all of this, it's at least a good explanation of why I find "marriage equality" distastefully propagandistic. If people waving that banner truly wanted "marriage equality" they would be fighting for normalizing marriage laws across the whole nation (marriage age and other requirements like relatedness as you mentioned), polygamy, etc. If they wanted to extend the logistical benefits of marriage (tax breaks etc.) to more people, they could fight for marriage between people that were doing it purely for the legal benefits.
Just call it "fighting for same-sex marriage", because that's what it's mostly about. "Marriage equality" feels like trying to sway the listener by giving a deceptively broad impression of the aims of the movement.
Just call it "fighting for same-sex marriage", because that's what it's mostly about. "Marriage equality" feels like trying to sway the listener by giving a deceptively broad impression of the aims of the movement.
> I'm sure many supporters of Brendan Eich's ouster are completely sincere
What "ouster"?
> It can't be as simple as "civil rights" and "marriage equality"
Even ignoring the questionable use of "ouster", yes, it can.
> for example, (first) cousin marriage is important to many groups [...]. And yet, I rarely see advocates of "marriage equality" get all lathered up over this issue.
So, what? Opponents of interracial marriage bans in the 1950s-1960s didn't get "lathered up" over cousin marriage bans, or same sex marriage bans, either. That doesn't mean that opposition to interracial marriage bans wasn't all about civil rights and equality.
> Are advocates of "marriage equality" in favor of legalizing cousin marriage?
Some probably are, some probably are not. As with most political issues, position on this issue doesn't absolutely determine position on any other issue.
> If not, why not?
Conceptually, regulating new legal family relationships on the basis of existing family relationships is different than doing so based on some other non-family status, so there is no real reason why positions on these should be expected to correlate.
> If so, why have they not worked harder to achieve it?
This is the "why aren't advocates of 'X' spending equal effort on every other analogous issue" argument, which ignores that actually effecting change often requires serial focus, rather than parallel effort.
> I see no way to resolve this paradox from within the context of progressive ideology
And yet, as noted above, I see several that fit quite well in that framework. Maybe what you fail to see says more about what you want to see than about what actually is there?
What "ouster"?
> It can't be as simple as "civil rights" and "marriage equality"
Even ignoring the questionable use of "ouster", yes, it can.
> for example, (first) cousin marriage is important to many groups [...]. And yet, I rarely see advocates of "marriage equality" get all lathered up over this issue.
So, what? Opponents of interracial marriage bans in the 1950s-1960s didn't get "lathered up" over cousin marriage bans, or same sex marriage bans, either. That doesn't mean that opposition to interracial marriage bans wasn't all about civil rights and equality.
> Are advocates of "marriage equality" in favor of legalizing cousin marriage?
Some probably are, some probably are not. As with most political issues, position on this issue doesn't absolutely determine position on any other issue.
> If not, why not?
Conceptually, regulating new legal family relationships on the basis of existing family relationships is different than doing so based on some other non-family status, so there is no real reason why positions on these should be expected to correlate.
> If so, why have they not worked harder to achieve it?
This is the "why aren't advocates of 'X' spending equal effort on every other analogous issue" argument, which ignores that actually effecting change often requires serial focus, rather than parallel effort.
> I see no way to resolve this paradox from within the context of progressive ideology
And yet, as noted above, I see several that fit quite well in that framework. Maybe what you fail to see says more about what you want to see than about what actually is there?
Conceptually, regulating new legal family relationships on the basis of existing family relationships is different than doing so based on some other non-family status, so there is no real reason why positions on these should be expected to correlate.
This rationalization of anti–cousin marriage bigotry makes you sound like an Islamophobe who cares little about violating Muslims' religious liberties by denying them their basic civil rights. Be careful not to get purged.
This rationalization of anti–cousin marriage bigotry makes you sound like an Islamophobe who cares little about violating Muslims' religious liberties by denying them their basic civil rights. Be careful not to get purged.
It's ok though, because this time the mob is right. All those other times the mob was wrong. So long as you can predict exactly which way subjective collective reasoning will go for years into the future you'll be fine.
Ah, so you would have maintained a healthy distance during the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s as well?
Would I distance myself from MLK? no. From the black panthers? yes. There is a vast difference between believing something to be true, and wishing harm upon those who refuse to acknowledge that truth.
Are there any injustices you see in the world that aren't also the popular opinion in your peer group?
Are there any injustices you see in the world that aren't also the popular opinion in your peer group?
Boy, what a loaded question! Tell me, do you still beat your your wife? But seriously, do you think there are any injustices in the world at all? It sounds like they don't count if they come from, or ar at all influenced by, one's peer group. How do you propose to find justice and injustice if not by agreement by the people that make up society?
Second, by your definition of harm, if a restaurant refuses to serve black customers, and people boycott it so the owner must close down, they have wished him harm and are on the "black panther" side of your equation, yes? Even if he must only change his policy, his "right to think" has been impinged upon, so I suppose that is also harm, right?
Second, by your definition of harm, if a restaurant refuses to serve black customers, and people boycott it so the owner must close down, they have wished him harm and are on the "black panther" side of your equation, yes? Even if he must only change his policy, his "right to think" has been impinged upon, so I suppose that is also harm, right?
Whether or not these points have merit, this media pundit is only replying to other media pundits. Some important nuances are being lost. If there is a way to make this sad story even sadder, it's turning it into a political football.
Is there anything Mozilla or Eich can do to clarify things? But I don't know if that matters any more, now that American political commentators have tasted blood.
Is there anything Mozilla or Eich can do to clarify things? But I don't know if that matters any more, now that American political commentators have tasted blood.
I think that this case is doing a lot of bad to the cause of gay rights, because it feeds intolerance and radicalization.
I think that this case is doing a lot of bad to the cause of gay rights
Indeed; if one were of a more conspiratorial bent, they might be inclined to think that's the exact purpose of this whole farce.
Indeed; if one were of a more conspiratorial bent, they might be inclined to think that's the exact purpose of this whole farce.
Intolerance of an intolerance is not equatable with the original intolerance.
This isn't intolerance of intolerance. It's punishment for a small donation six years ago. If Eich were running around being a dick to gay Mozilla employees, nobody would disagree with firing him. But he's not. People are attacking him for his political sympathies, not for being intolerant. (In fact, Eich's behavior at Mozilla was exemplary. I have never heard of any instances where he had trouble tolerating gays or liberals.)
When we talk about "intolerance of intolerance" being OK, we're being a bit flip. What is actually meant by the phrase is that it's OK to make people act tolerant, even if they aren't naturally inclined to do so, in order to preserve a particular group's rights. They can hold whatever opinions they want, but they have to be civil. But Eich was already doing that. He was even one of the people who helped draft Mozilla's inclusiveness guidelines. This was just punishment because Eich held a particular opinion, not because he was actually having trouble tolerating gays in the organization.
When we talk about "intolerance of intolerance" being OK, we're being a bit flip. What is actually meant by the phrase is that it's OK to make people act tolerant, even if they aren't naturally inclined to do so, in order to preserve a particular group's rights. They can hold whatever opinions they want, but they have to be civil. But Eich was already doing that. He was even one of the people who helped draft Mozilla's inclusiveness guidelines. This was just punishment because Eich held a particular opinion, not because he was actually having trouble tolerating gays in the organization.
Those raising a stink assert that "political sympathy" (to the extent of taking action to support it) with a proposal to strip rights from a portion of the population is intolerance of that subpopulation. And certainly it's the case that one needn't be intolerant in every possible way to be intolerant.
I am somewhat sympathetic to that view, but that was a long time ago. If he has been 100% tolerant for almost six years now, this action seems more like a very belated punishment for past intolerance than an attempt to force him to be tolerant, which he was already doing.
Sure, I don't have enough insight into the goings on at Mozilla to say. That said, being a lightening rod and dealing with PR stuff effectively is part of the job of being a CEO, and arguably if he'd performed the job better he'd still hold it - I'm not sure the outcome is ideal, but I'm not going to freak out about it either.
I don't believe any CEO could have done better against the witch hunt Eich faced. I mean, OKCupid was protesting him personally. I've never seen anything like it before, and I'm not sure what, say, Tim Cook would have done if the tables were turned and people had been attacking him for being a homosexual and it was materially affecting the bottom line. I think it would have worked out much the same.
"I don't believe any CEO could have done better against the witch hunt Eich faced."
Perhaps not. Lacking the skills and experience that make a large-organization-CEO, I don't think my inability to think up a strategy means much. I'm also not paid like a CEO. I expect the same applies to you, although I don't know that. Obviously, our collective inability means slightly more.
Perhaps not. Lacking the skills and experience that make a large-organization-CEO, I don't think my inability to think up a strategy means much. I'm also not paid like a CEO. I expect the same applies to you, although I don't know that. Obviously, our collective inability means slightly more.
Well, I'm thinking more about what I have seen CEOs of large corporations do before. I'm sure I couldn't do it. But many CEOs have been brought down without half the pressure (see, for example, the history of Yahoo), so it's hard to imagine anyone could withstand that kind of storm.
> If Eich were running around being a dick to gay Mozilla employees, nobody would disagree with firing him. But he's not.
Not in public, no. However, he was a dick to them in private where he though it'd be safe. Prop 8 was about taking away a right that gay people had. They were already allowed to marry. This was about the majority ganging up on a small, persecuted group and taking things away from them by legislative fiat. The Constitution forbids this, as was later confirmed by the courts.
If Prop 8 had been about re-enslaving blacks, and he'd donated to that, do you think we'd be saying, "well, but he's nice to all the black people he works with!" It was morally repugnant to support Prop 8, and public acts like political donations do, shockingly, have consequences.
Not in public, no. However, he was a dick to them in private where he though it'd be safe. Prop 8 was about taking away a right that gay people had. They were already allowed to marry. This was about the majority ganging up on a small, persecuted group and taking things away from them by legislative fiat. The Constitution forbids this, as was later confirmed by the courts.
If Prop 8 had been about re-enslaving blacks, and he'd donated to that, do you think we'd be saying, "well, but he's nice to all the black people he works with!" It was morally repugnant to support Prop 8, and public acts like political donations do, shockingly, have consequences.
Isn't that, "Two wrongs make a right?" In any case, it is still an intolerance.
It's very dangerous ground to label political donation as "intolerance." It's inimical to civic and democratic political processes in a free society. In fact, I would label it as intolerant.
If a person is taking actions that are nonviolent and legal, and they do not advocate the active destruction of our system of self governance, they should be allowed to coexist. This is what tolerance means. We need to let people oppose us and take positions we don't like. That is what it means to live in a free and democratic society. So long as those people don't act like sore losers, they get to take part.
While it was done legally, the actions that got Brendan Eich fired for a donation he made six years ago strike me as the actions of "sore winners." Brendan Eich's behavior, while a PR disaster at the end, consisted of running a company with policies friendly to homosexual relationships.
Mr. Eich was the one behaving magnanimously in this situation.
It's very dangerous ground to label political donation as "intolerance." It's inimical to civic and democratic political processes in a free society. In fact, I would label it as intolerant.
If a person is taking actions that are nonviolent and legal, and they do not advocate the active destruction of our system of self governance, they should be allowed to coexist. This is what tolerance means. We need to let people oppose us and take positions we don't like. That is what it means to live in a free and democratic society. So long as those people don't act like sore losers, they get to take part.
While it was done legally, the actions that got Brendan Eich fired for a donation he made six years ago strike me as the actions of "sore winners." Brendan Eich's behavior, while a PR disaster at the end, consisted of running a company with policies friendly to homosexual relationships.
Mr. Eich was the one behaving magnanimously in this situation.
> While it was done legally, the actions that got Brendan Eich fired for a donation he made six years ago strike me as the actions of "sore winners." Brendan Eich's behavior, while a PR disaster at the end, consisted of running a company with policies friendly to homosexual relationships.
Why the attempt to make it sound like this was ancient history? The donation was made six years ago because that's when California's Proposition 8 happened.
Also, wouldn't a company with policies friendly to homosexual relationships be more likely to have a higher percentage of people who support such policies and not want a CEO that could potentially change those policies?
Why the attempt to make it sound like this was ancient history? The donation was made six years ago because that's when California's Proposition 8 happened.
Also, wouldn't a company with policies friendly to homosexual relationships be more likely to have a higher percentage of people who support such policies and not want a CEO that could potentially change those policies?
Political positions involve decisions about how we use violence to structure society. Such positions can clearly be intolerant, and taking actions to support clearly intolerant positions seems like it should carry the adjective as well. Someone who donated in support of a proposition to kill all the Jews is probably rightly labelled antisemitic, even if they are always polite face-to-face. And yes, surely, such a proposition wouldn't be constitutional - but neither was Prop 8. Is this the same degree as that? No, of course not. But there's a problem with your framework and I don't see a trivial solution.
Political positions involve decisions about how we use violence to structure society.
More germane to democratic industrialized 1st world nations, is how people choose to refrain from violence to structure society.
Someone who donated in support of a proposition to kill all the Jews is probably rightly labelled antisemitic, even if they are always polite face-to-face. And yes, surely, such a proposition wouldn't be constitutional
The "problem" is with your broad definition of intolerance, which you attempt to support with your (self-admitted) straw man involving a hypothetical proposition which would fit the legal (not just customary) definition of hate speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
There is a societal problem with supporting a proposition which could be defined as hate speech, which is directly dangerous and illegal. There is no societal problem with propositions which are constitutionally untenable. We have political mechanisms for dealing with that.
there's a problem with your framework and I don't see a trivial solution.
No, there was a problem with your straw man. Remove that, and you'll find that your position reduces to, "Society should not tolerate speech from people who are wrong." The problem is how such a thing would be adjudicated.
There's a problem with your framework. You don't see the solution because your position is effectively against free speech. You are only for speech you personally label as "tolerant." In a truly free society, one must be free to be wrong. That's the only way it can work.
More germane to democratic industrialized 1st world nations, is how people choose to refrain from violence to structure society.
Someone who donated in support of a proposition to kill all the Jews is probably rightly labelled antisemitic, even if they are always polite face-to-face. And yes, surely, such a proposition wouldn't be constitutional
The "problem" is with your broad definition of intolerance, which you attempt to support with your (self-admitted) straw man involving a hypothetical proposition which would fit the legal (not just customary) definition of hate speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
There is a societal problem with supporting a proposition which could be defined as hate speech, which is directly dangerous and illegal. There is no societal problem with propositions which are constitutionally untenable. We have political mechanisms for dealing with that.
there's a problem with your framework and I don't see a trivial solution.
No, there was a problem with your straw man. Remove that, and you'll find that your position reduces to, "Society should not tolerate speech from people who are wrong." The problem is how such a thing would be adjudicated.
There's a problem with your framework. You don't see the solution because your position is effectively against free speech. You are only for speech you personally label as "tolerant." In a truly free society, one must be free to be wrong. That's the only way it can work.
First, there is no straw man here. A straw man is a misrepresentation of your position, which I then argue against. What I was constructing was a counterexample that fit what you'd laid out but that I assumed (correctly) that you did not agree with. It's a proof by counterexample of the completeness of your framework.
Second, you deny that there is anything incomplete about your framework, and then you pull in hate speech - which 1) it was by no means clear that you had intended to include (adding "unless hate speech" seems to me a materially different position than without it, and real people probably hold both versions), and 2) it is not entirely clear that Prop 8 shouldn't be considered an example of hate speech (though context being what it was, it is entirely clear that we shouldn't be prosecuting people retroactively for it).
"There is no societal problem with propositions which are constitutionally untenable."
There is no inherent societal problem by virtue of a proposition being constitutionally untenable. Many constitutionally untenable actions entail a tremendous societal problem, though - consider the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. Many would consider temporarily depriving a class of people of rights they'd previously been afforded "a societal problem". In many cases, I think they're clearly correct. Here, I think they're correct but somewhat less clearly (partly due to proximity).
'No, there was a problem with your straw man. Remove that, and you'll find that your position reduces to, "Society should not tolerate speech from people who are wrong." The problem is how such a thing would be adjudicated.
There's a problem with your framework. You don't see the solution because your position is effectively against free speech. You are only for speech you personally label as "tolerant." In a truly free society, one must be free to be wrong. That's the only way it can work.'
First, it should be clearly noted that no one is calling for criminal penalties. These things are adjudicated by individuals deciding who they are and are not comfortable dealing with.
Second, I didn't propose a framework. You'd made an assertion, and I was trying to get at the lines you were drawing around that assertion.
Third, in a free society, you deal with the consequences of your actions - including speech. It's worth noting that this is why capabilities for anonymous speech are so important. There are some consequences we should clearly be going out of our way to preclude; governmental retribution is antithetical to free speech, violence needs to be prevented, &c. But "I said something people don't like, therefore they don't like me as much, therefore they prefer to do business with someone else" is an entirely unavoidable consequence of a free society - the alternative is to force people to do business they don't want to do.
Finally, again, there was no straw-man, and granting that introducing the notion of hate speech solves the issue (of which I'm skeptical) there was a flaw in the framework you'd laid out: the lack of mention of hate speech as an exception.
Second, you deny that there is anything incomplete about your framework, and then you pull in hate speech - which 1) it was by no means clear that you had intended to include (adding "unless hate speech" seems to me a materially different position than without it, and real people probably hold both versions), and 2) it is not entirely clear that Prop 8 shouldn't be considered an example of hate speech (though context being what it was, it is entirely clear that we shouldn't be prosecuting people retroactively for it).
"There is no societal problem with propositions which are constitutionally untenable."
There is no inherent societal problem by virtue of a proposition being constitutionally untenable. Many constitutionally untenable actions entail a tremendous societal problem, though - consider the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. Many would consider temporarily depriving a class of people of rights they'd previously been afforded "a societal problem". In many cases, I think they're clearly correct. Here, I think they're correct but somewhat less clearly (partly due to proximity).
'No, there was a problem with your straw man. Remove that, and you'll find that your position reduces to, "Society should not tolerate speech from people who are wrong." The problem is how such a thing would be adjudicated.
There's a problem with your framework. You don't see the solution because your position is effectively against free speech. You are only for speech you personally label as "tolerant." In a truly free society, one must be free to be wrong. That's the only way it can work.'
First, it should be clearly noted that no one is calling for criminal penalties. These things are adjudicated by individuals deciding who they are and are not comfortable dealing with.
Second, I didn't propose a framework. You'd made an assertion, and I was trying to get at the lines you were drawing around that assertion.
Third, in a free society, you deal with the consequences of your actions - including speech. It's worth noting that this is why capabilities for anonymous speech are so important. There are some consequences we should clearly be going out of our way to preclude; governmental retribution is antithetical to free speech, violence needs to be prevented, &c. But "I said something people don't like, therefore they don't like me as much, therefore they prefer to do business with someone else" is an entirely unavoidable consequence of a free society - the alternative is to force people to do business they don't want to do.
Finally, again, there was no straw-man, and granting that introducing the notion of hate speech solves the issue (of which I'm skeptical) there was a flaw in the framework you'd laid out: the lack of mention of hate speech as an exception.
First, there is no straw man here. A straw man is a misrepresentation of your position, which I then argue against.
You proposed a fictitious law endorsing hate speech -- in other words an illegal law. Straw man.
First, it should be clearly noted that no one is calling for criminal penalties.
So the social penalties against gay men were perfectly okay?
Third, in a free society, you deal with the consequences of your actions
This is an appeal to a minimal standard of behavior. You are free to be a jerk to people you don't like. That's not a wise, compassionate, or great way to be.
Finally, again, there was no straw-man, and granting that introducing the notion of hate speech solves the issue
Oh brother. You concoct a straw-man law as part of your argument, then grant it as part of my argument? You have a habit of misplacing referents when it is convenient for you, with the effect of placing fictitious positions into other's mouths. You have done this in this thread and others. I leave it as an exercise for you to find and correct your mistake.
therefore they don't like me as much, therefore they prefer to do business with someone else
When people go digging up stuff from six years ago and use it as the basis of a mass action for an issue that they have won, it crosses a line.
So, your position is basically that all supporters of anti gay marriage political positions must be as socially stigmatized "as bad as racists," and that your job as a social activist isn't done until that's the norm. I'm sorry but that defies logic and is simply vindictive. We need not adhere to arbitrary, vindictive, and oversimplified social patterns of the past. (Isn't that part of the point of marriage between whoever wants to marry?) We will be further along in our journey as a pluralistic society when a gay marriage is no big deal at all, just like being in an inter-racial relationship is no big deal in the more cosmopolitan parts of our country. Your activism will be done not when your former opponents are sufficiently shamed and vilified, but when young people find your current attitude and those of Brendan Eich to be the quaint and incomprehensible stories of a past era.
Plenty of "perfectly legal" crappiness got done, and in some places still gets done to people with the "wrong" apparent sexual orientation and outward appearance. Doing more "perfectly legal" things that resemble a witch-hunt is only "an eye for an eye making the whole world blind."
You proposed a fictitious law endorsing hate speech -- in other words an illegal law. Straw man.
First, it should be clearly noted that no one is calling for criminal penalties.
So the social penalties against gay men were perfectly okay?
Third, in a free society, you deal with the consequences of your actions
This is an appeal to a minimal standard of behavior. You are free to be a jerk to people you don't like. That's not a wise, compassionate, or great way to be.
Finally, again, there was no straw-man, and granting that introducing the notion of hate speech solves the issue
Oh brother. You concoct a straw-man law as part of your argument, then grant it as part of my argument? You have a habit of misplacing referents when it is convenient for you, with the effect of placing fictitious positions into other's mouths. You have done this in this thread and others. I leave it as an exercise for you to find and correct your mistake.
therefore they don't like me as much, therefore they prefer to do business with someone else
When people go digging up stuff from six years ago and use it as the basis of a mass action for an issue that they have won, it crosses a line.
So, your position is basically that all supporters of anti gay marriage political positions must be as socially stigmatized "as bad as racists," and that your job as a social activist isn't done until that's the norm. I'm sorry but that defies logic and is simply vindictive. We need not adhere to arbitrary, vindictive, and oversimplified social patterns of the past. (Isn't that part of the point of marriage between whoever wants to marry?) We will be further along in our journey as a pluralistic society when a gay marriage is no big deal at all, just like being in an inter-racial relationship is no big deal in the more cosmopolitan parts of our country. Your activism will be done not when your former opponents are sufficiently shamed and vilified, but when young people find your current attitude and those of Brendan Eich to be the quaint and incomprehensible stories of a past era.
Plenty of "perfectly legal" crappiness got done, and in some places still gets done to people with the "wrong" apparent sexual orientation and outward appearance. Doing more "perfectly legal" things that resemble a witch-hunt is only "an eye for an eye making the whole world blind."
This "coexistence" mischaracterization is silly. His right to coexist is not in question. But we are under no obligation to patronize an organization that puts people whose worldviews are at odds with ours in ways that damage people we care about. I feel no ethical compulsion to associate with or enrich (because his salary's paid for by my eyeballs if I use Firefox) people who want to hurt people I love. He's welcome to sell his services to people who don't care about that, but I won't buy.
> This "coexistence" mischaracterization is silly. His right to coexist is not in question.
When we say "coexist," we do not merely mean "physically exist on the same planet." We mean "exist and be civil with one another." People used to refuse to patronize restaurants that permitted negroes. We do not describe those people as being in favor of peaceful coexistence; we say that they were intolerant and opposed to coexistence.
> But we are under no obligation to patronize an organization that puts people whose worldviews are at odds with ours in ways that damage people we care about. I feel no ethical compulsion to associate with or enrich (because his salary's paid for by my eyeballs if I use Firefox) people who want to hurt people I love. He's welcome to sell his services to people who don't care about that, but I won't buy.
As the OP suggests, this sounds suspiciously like the viewpoint used to justify driving gays, blacks, etc. out of society. "Oh, I'm just exercising my freedom of association." It didn't justify those people — why are you so sure it justifies you?
Using your freedom of association as a weapon against people you disagree with has generally not been viewed kindly by history. I think you're on the right side of the gay marriage debate, but you're on the wrong side of the "How do we coexist with people who disagree with us?" debate.
As was said earlier, if Eich were actually out to get gays, I would understand this reaction. But he isn't out to get gays, and hasn't done anything against them in six years. He was being perfectly tolerant of gays when people decided to come after him. You're punishing him for his viewpoint, not stopping him from "hurting people you love," which he wasn't doing.
When we say "coexist," we do not merely mean "physically exist on the same planet." We mean "exist and be civil with one another." People used to refuse to patronize restaurants that permitted negroes. We do not describe those people as being in favor of peaceful coexistence; we say that they were intolerant and opposed to coexistence.
> But we are under no obligation to patronize an organization that puts people whose worldviews are at odds with ours in ways that damage people we care about. I feel no ethical compulsion to associate with or enrich (because his salary's paid for by my eyeballs if I use Firefox) people who want to hurt people I love. He's welcome to sell his services to people who don't care about that, but I won't buy.
As the OP suggests, this sounds suspiciously like the viewpoint used to justify driving gays, blacks, etc. out of society. "Oh, I'm just exercising my freedom of association." It didn't justify those people — why are you so sure it justifies you?
Using your freedom of association as a weapon against people you disagree with has generally not been viewed kindly by history. I think you're on the right side of the gay marriage debate, but you're on the wrong side of the "How do we coexist with people who disagree with us?" debate.
As was said earlier, if Eich were actually out to get gays, I would understand this reaction. But he isn't out to get gays, and hasn't done anything against them in six years. He was being perfectly tolerant of gays when people decided to come after him. You're punishing him for his viewpoint, not stopping him from "hurting people you love," which he wasn't doing.
> When we say "coexist," we do not merely mean "physically exist on the same planet." We mean "exist and be civil with one another."
Your definition of "civil" and mine are not the same. I find it intensely uncivil to try to strip marriage rights from multiple friends of mine. I do not find it uncivil to say "this dude's a jerk and I won't give him money"--as I said in a cousin post, I don't go to my corner store because the owner's a jerk, this is not materially different to me.
> As the OP suggests, this sounds suspiciously like the viewpoint used to justify driving gays, blacks, etc. out of society. "Oh, I'm just exercising my freedom of association." It didn't justify those people — why are you so sure it justifies you?
You can't choose to be Not Black. You can't choose to be Not Gender Dysphoric. You can choose to be Not Bigot. The line of demarcation is super, super obvious from where I stand.
> You're punishing him for his viewpoint, not stopping him from "hurting people you love," which he wasn't doing.
Have you looked at his donation records? He has a pattern of backing politicians who are notable in their "culture war" self-presentation, who make a point of speaking about how terrible homosexuals are. Pat Buchanan. Thomas McClintock. Linda Smith. Proposition 8. (He didn't even live in Smith's state, let alone her district, when he chose to give her money. That speaks loudly to me.)
Donating money to anti-gay causes and anti-gay politicians is very much, by my lights, an action. Many of them. And don't mistake me: they're actions he is completely within his rights to take! But the same thing that gives him the right to do that frees me from the obligation to enrich him by using the product of the organization he leads. And I do not choose to undertake that obligation for him.
Your definition of "civil" and mine are not the same. I find it intensely uncivil to try to strip marriage rights from multiple friends of mine. I do not find it uncivil to say "this dude's a jerk and I won't give him money"--as I said in a cousin post, I don't go to my corner store because the owner's a jerk, this is not materially different to me.
> As the OP suggests, this sounds suspiciously like the viewpoint used to justify driving gays, blacks, etc. out of society. "Oh, I'm just exercising my freedom of association." It didn't justify those people — why are you so sure it justifies you?
You can't choose to be Not Black. You can't choose to be Not Gender Dysphoric. You can choose to be Not Bigot. The line of demarcation is super, super obvious from where I stand.
> You're punishing him for his viewpoint, not stopping him from "hurting people you love," which he wasn't doing.
Have you looked at his donation records? He has a pattern of backing politicians who are notable in their "culture war" self-presentation, who make a point of speaking about how terrible homosexuals are. Pat Buchanan. Thomas McClintock. Linda Smith. Proposition 8. (He didn't even live in Smith's state, let alone her district, when he chose to give her money. That speaks loudly to me.)
Donating money to anti-gay causes and anti-gay politicians is very much, by my lights, an action. Many of them. And don't mistake me: they're actions he is completely within his rights to take! But the same thing that gives him the right to do that frees me from the obligation to enrich him by using the product of the organization he leads. And I do not choose to undertake that obligation for him.
> Your definition of "civil" and mine are not the same. I find it intensely uncivil to try to strip marriage rights from multiple friends of mine.
I would agree if Eich were still doing this, but that was a long time ago. Like I said, I feel like people were punishing him for past wrongs that indicate a "wrong opinion" rather than trying to right current wrongs.
> You can't choose to be Not Black. You can't choose to be Not Gender Dysphoric. You can choose to be Not Bigot.
Can you? I didn't choose to think homosexuality is OK. It's just the way I feel. I don't think I could possibly choose to believe homosexuality is wrong — that's just not compatible with my morality. Are you really capable of arbitrarily choosing to believe things?
Unless you're talking about actions. In which case it seems to me that Eich has chosen to be Not Bigot for over half a decade.
> Have you looked at his donation records? He has a pattern of backing politicians who are notable in their "culture war" self-presentation, who make a point of speaking about how terrible homosexuals are. Pat Buchanan. Thomas McClintock. Linda Smith. Proposition 8.
Most of those were so long ago that I wasn't even old enough to vote. McClintock is the only one he's backed in the past decade AFAIK, and to the best of my recollection McClintock tends to focus on financial issues. (McClintock is against gay marriage, but I don't remember it ever being a focus for him. All of the McClintock supporters I know like him for his fiscal policy.)
I would agree if Eich were still doing this, but that was a long time ago. Like I said, I feel like people were punishing him for past wrongs that indicate a "wrong opinion" rather than trying to right current wrongs.
> You can't choose to be Not Black. You can't choose to be Not Gender Dysphoric. You can choose to be Not Bigot.
Can you? I didn't choose to think homosexuality is OK. It's just the way I feel. I don't think I could possibly choose to believe homosexuality is wrong — that's just not compatible with my morality. Are you really capable of arbitrarily choosing to believe things?
Unless you're talking about actions. In which case it seems to me that Eich has chosen to be Not Bigot for over half a decade.
> Have you looked at his donation records? He has a pattern of backing politicians who are notable in their "culture war" self-presentation, who make a point of speaking about how terrible homosexuals are. Pat Buchanan. Thomas McClintock. Linda Smith. Proposition 8.
Most of those were so long ago that I wasn't even old enough to vote. McClintock is the only one he's backed in the past decade AFAIK, and to the best of my recollection McClintock tends to focus on financial issues. (McClintock is against gay marriage, but I don't remember it ever being a focus for him. All of the McClintock supporters I know like him for his fiscal policy.)
His right to coexist is not in question.
Have a group come after you and get you fired, and see how much "peaceful coexistence" you get from that.
Have a group come after you and get you fired, and see how much "peaceful coexistence" you get from that.
First: he didn't get fired. Nobody in a position to know has even suggested that they requested his resignation. Everything I've read points to that Mozilla wanted him to stay. So framing it as "oh, they got him fired" is just plain disingenuous.
Second: Is he being harassed at home? Is he getting swatted? Are people throwing rocks through his windows? Then those people should be arrested, because that's a crime. But quitting your job because you can't deal with people who are pissed off over your desire to hurt people is not something I will shed tears over.
This is no different from refusing to patronize the corner store near me because the owner's a jerk. Neither he nor Eich are entitled to my business.
Second: Is he being harassed at home? Is he getting swatted? Are people throwing rocks through his windows? Then those people should be arrested, because that's a crime. But quitting your job because you can't deal with people who are pissed off over your desire to hurt people is not something I will shed tears over.
This is no different from refusing to patronize the corner store near me because the owner's a jerk. Neither he nor Eich are entitled to my business.
First: he didn't get fired.
He probably feels passionate about what he does. Imagine your work and subject of your technical passion becomes a constant reminder of a debacle like this. You would not wish that on yourself.
This is no different from refusing to patronize the corner store near me because the owner's a jerk.
Oh really? I thought principles of tolerance and social justice were at work. Are you admitting that you simply don't like and have no sympathy for "people like that?"
This is not an interpersonal conflict. This is not about someone "being a jerk." At least I hope not. At least, I hope principles of tolerance underlie everything in such an action, and not action/adventure show style ad-hominem morality. (i.e. "He deserved it!")
He probably feels passionate about what he does. Imagine your work and subject of your technical passion becomes a constant reminder of a debacle like this. You would not wish that on yourself.
This is no different from refusing to patronize the corner store near me because the owner's a jerk.
Oh really? I thought principles of tolerance and social justice were at work. Are you admitting that you simply don't like and have no sympathy for "people like that?"
This is not an interpersonal conflict. This is not about someone "being a jerk." At least I hope not. At least, I hope principles of tolerance underlie everything in such an action, and not action/adventure show style ad-hominem morality. (i.e. "He deserved it!")
Once you've decided that the "tolerance" of letting one person fuck with less privileged people is virtuous, I literally can't say anything that will parse for you. I'll leave you with a link to the best description of this bullshit affair and one quote from it, and then I am done.
> Did you catch the problem here? I’ll spell it out for you: he doesn’t give a shit about tolerance, or opposing discrimination. He only cares insofar as people tolerate him. He wants to be left alone to fuck with other people.
> And he is wielding it as a weapon to shut everyone up.
It applies to those preaching tolerance for Eich as well as Gerv, about whom Eevee is writing. A "tolerance" that amounts to "sure, he's actively tried to hurt you, but let that slide" is not particularly meaningful. (Whereas the tolerance of "gay people can get married, and if I don't want to get gay married I don't have to" is meaningful because it is not infringing upon anyone--but you'll notice that the word "tolerance" is rarely used by people who support such basic dignities. Strangely enough, it's so frequently the watchword of the oppressor, not the oppressed.)
http://me.veekun.com/blog/2014/04/05/mozilla-and-free-speech...
> Did you catch the problem here? I’ll spell it out for you: he doesn’t give a shit about tolerance, or opposing discrimination. He only cares insofar as people tolerate him. He wants to be left alone to fuck with other people.
> And he is wielding it as a weapon to shut everyone up.
It applies to those preaching tolerance for Eich as well as Gerv, about whom Eevee is writing. A "tolerance" that amounts to "sure, he's actively tried to hurt you, but let that slide" is not particularly meaningful. (Whereas the tolerance of "gay people can get married, and if I don't want to get gay married I don't have to" is meaningful because it is not infringing upon anyone--but you'll notice that the word "tolerance" is rarely used by people who support such basic dignities. Strangely enough, it's so frequently the watchword of the oppressor, not the oppressed.)
http://me.veekun.com/blog/2014/04/05/mozilla-and-free-speech...
That would be true if gays were trying to make straight marriage illegal. However, in reality, there is no symmetry in this issue.
Or at least the PR reasons ("do what the customers want") and the libertarian reasons ("private companies can make any decision that they want for any reason") for not wanting Eich for CEO are the old PR and libertarian reasons for firing gays.
What if your reason is that he supports the elimination of benefits for a commonly discriminated against minority class, and he's being put into a position to at least indirectly make decisions about those benefits at a company that has historically supported them?
Any way to figure out an analogy to that in discrimination against gays?
edit: That's a serious question, and if you have a serious opinion, I'd think you'd reply after downvoting.
What if your reason is that he supports the elimination of benefits for a commonly discriminated against minority class, and he's being put into a position to at least indirectly make decisions about those benefits at a company that has historically supported them?
Any way to figure out an analogy to that in discrimination against gays?
edit: That's a serious question, and if you have a serious opinion, I'd think you'd reply after downvoting.
What if your reason is that he supports the elimination of benefits for a commonly discriminated against minority class, and he's being put into a position to at least indirectly make decisions about those benefits at a company that has historically supported them?
What the record actually shows is that the policies of Mozilla, in the time he was CEO, treated well those who had cause to oppose him in his private political life.
What the record actually shows is that the policies of Mozilla, in the time he was CEO, treated well those who had cause to oppose him in his private political life.
>in the time he was CEO
You mean during that week that everybody hammered him about his anti-gay donations and then he quit? I have doubts about his ability to push substantial policy during that period, to say the least.
You mean during that week that everybody hammered him about his anti-gay donations and then he quit? I have doubts about his ability to push substantial policy during that period, to say the least.
So, basically people were just against what he might do. (Which also has clear parallels with past justifications for firing a gay CEO.)
I really wish anyone at all would acknowledge that not everyone who had a problem with his donation wanted him out of a job. People are too eager to combine everyone into two faceless mobs when the arguments were far more nuanced than two mindless binaries.
The general wave of anti-gay equality campaigns didn't start or stop with prop 8. It began as a reaction to some of the early victories of the pro-equality movement. My own state tried to make it legal for businesses to deny service to me just a few weeks ago. His donation exists in a context where people are still suffering from the constant assault on their status as equal citizens.
The general wave of anti-gay equality campaigns didn't start or stop with prop 8. It began as a reaction to some of the early victories of the pro-equality movement. My own state tried to make it legal for businesses to deny service to me just a few weeks ago. His donation exists in a context where people are still suffering from the constant assault on their status as equal citizens.
> Losing your job for being gay is different from losing your job for opposing gay marriage. Unlike homosexuality, opposition to same-sex marriage is a choice, and it directly limits the rights of other people.
He wrote an entire article equivocating them, then he quickly writes a couple sentences pointing out he full well knows it is absolute nonsense. Well played by him, I read the article.
He wrote an entire article equivocating them, then he quickly writes a couple sentences pointing out he full well knows it is absolute nonsense. Well played by him, I read the article.
[deleted]
[deleted]
He's right. And so the fuck what?
It's not the reasoning I care about. It's never been about the reasoning. No one ever bought any bullshit about "community standards" even when it was being used to oust gays. It was about the act of marginalizing individuals over something that literally affects nobody else.
If a gay person works at my company, his being gay will have no affect on my livelihood. People with an anti-gay agenda have made a choice to stand in the way of progress. That means their actions negatively affect the people around them, malevolent. They're entitled to no consideration, because it's their choice to ostracize themselves for their ignorance. It should be seen the same as firing someone who habitually shits on the bathroom floor.
It's not the reasoning I care about. It's never been about the reasoning. No one ever bought any bullshit about "community standards" even when it was being used to oust gays. It was about the act of marginalizing individuals over something that literally affects nobody else.
If a gay person works at my company, his being gay will have no affect on my livelihood. People with an anti-gay agenda have made a choice to stand in the way of progress. That means their actions negatively affect the people around them, malevolent. They're entitled to no consideration, because it's their choice to ostracize themselves for their ignorance. It should be seen the same as firing someone who habitually shits on the bathroom floor.
"If an anti-gay person works at my company, his being anti-gay will have no affect on my livelihood. People with a gay agenda have made a choice to stand in the way of progress. That means their actions negatively affect the people around them, malevolent. They're entitled to no consideration, because it's their choice to ostracize themselves for their ignorance. It should be seen the same as firing someone who habitually shits on the bathroom floor."
See how this goes both ways?
See how this goes both ways?
Do you believe gay people being allowed to marry negatively affect you? If so, how?
No, but neither can I see how Eich, in this particular context, was negatively affecting anyone at Mozilla. Folks were uncomfortable with a private choice he made, just like some people are uncomfortable that some gay people choose to get married.
Eich is one of those people. So much so that he put money into supporting a law that actively banned same-sex marriage. Mozilla is a company that is friendly to same-sex marriage, if people don't want that changed, they shouldn't support a CEO that could change that.
Do you believe gay people being allowed to marry negatively affect you? If so, how?
Is your immediate reaction to someone talking about a general principle to always assume it's cryptic opposition to your particular political views?
Is your immediate reaction to someone talking about a general principle to always assume it's cryptic opposition to your particular political views?
No, I asked that question because of what he wrote, "People with a gay agenda have made a choice to stand in the way of progress. That means their actions negatively affect the people around them, malevolent."
That's interesting. Do you have a link/citation?
What are you talking about? Read the parent comment.
That's the same thing they said about gays and miscegenators. They weren't opposed just because people were on their high horses — no, it was the damage that gays and miscegenators did to society that required us to run them out of society.
In the end, it's all just "You hold the opposite opinion from me about what's good for society, so I'm going to try to evict you from society."
In the end, it's all just "You hold the opposite opinion from me about what's good for society, so I'm going to try to evict you from society."
Believing homosexual behavior undermines society is predicated on a false premise: biblical morality.
Doing shitty things that undermine the lives of others is objectively evil.
Doing shitty things that undermine the lives of others is objectively evil.
> Believing homosexual behavior undermines society is predicated on a false premise: biblical morality.
And they think your morality is predicated on a false premise. The point is that I still expect them to treat you decently, and I expect you to treat them decently.
> Doing shitty things that undermine the lives of others is objectively evil.
Like petitioning to get them fired from their jobs? That kind of thing?
And they think your morality is predicated on a false premise. The point is that I still expect them to treat you decently, and I expect you to treat them decently.
> Doing shitty things that undermine the lives of others is objectively evil.
Like petitioning to get them fired from their jobs? That kind of thing?
I can see how you would think being fired from a job is on the same level as not being allowed to freely live your life without someone shitting on your rights. Wait no I don't.
Everyone is entitled to free speech, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for what you decide to do with it.
Everyone is entitled to free speech, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for what you decide to do with it.
Thanks for the well-positioned comment. I had half a mind to nod my head at this article, but you're so right. The problem with Eich's donation was that it made an otherwise-unnecessary personal opinion perfectly obvious.
Actively contributing to a campaign to crush individual rights is a pretty strong indicator that as a CEO he'd have trouble living up to all sorts of equal-opportunity employers requirements.
Yeah, it sucks that this was dragged into the public, and don't even get be started on the waste-land of cable news. But he probably should have thought of the employment implications in donating to a campaign against gays before he did it.
I like the bathroom floor analogy, because there's a tacit social contract that we don't shit on the floor. Same is true in business. He's free to say whatever he wants in public, but he's also free to be heavily encouraged to resign over whatever is he DOES say.
Actively contributing to a campaign to crush individual rights is a pretty strong indicator that as a CEO he'd have trouble living up to all sorts of equal-opportunity employers requirements.
Yeah, it sucks that this was dragged into the public, and don't even get be started on the waste-land of cable news. But he probably should have thought of the employment implications in donating to a campaign against gays before he did it.
I like the bathroom floor analogy, because there's a tacit social contract that we don't shit on the floor. Same is true in business. He's free to say whatever he wants in public, but he's also free to be heavily encouraged to resign over whatever is he DOES say.
Actively contributing to a campaign to crush individual rights is a pretty strong indicator that as a CEO he'd have trouble living up to all sorts of equal-opportunity employers requirements.
The actual policies of the organization he helped to run would suggest exactly the opposite.
The actual policies of the organization he helped to run would suggest exactly the opposite.
He did not advocate that one day, the oppressed would be on top and the "bad guys" would get theirs. That sort of attitude would be inimical to what he, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela would have advocated. Getting Brendan Eich fired makes nobody more free or less oppressed. Instead, it moves society towards a state where no one feels free to say what they really think, unless it hews to the majority opinion, and where might makes right and principles of tolerance and decency are only applied to the "correct" people. In days past, the "correct" people would have excluded non-whites and homosexuals.
An English vicar once said that to judge someone's character, observe not how they treat the people they need, but how they treat the people they don't need.