Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:34 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
PolakoVoador wrote:If anal sex *is* a risk factor, it should be restricted also for hetero couples who practice anal sex, and I've never heard of a place which asks this question before accepting or denying your blood donation. I might be wrong obviously, so any counter example is welcome.
Nope, usually the question is simply "Have you had anal sex with a man?". If you answer yes, you cannot donate blood for life in the states.

The question is only directed at men. It is generally phrased as "Have you had sex with another man, even once, since 1977?" This is based on an FDA requirement (read: Obama)

The only reason we exclude this group but not other high-risk groups is the sweeping AIDS panic from a few decades ago. However, changing it may be hard if patients start freaking out about catching the gay, or something.

My point is that it's not worth it to boycott individual blood centers, as (A) they're not the ones imposing this ban, and (B) there is no non-discriminatory alternative in the United States. Action on this issue should be directed at the FDA and the President, as most blood centers would love to take blood from gay donors, but are currently prohibited from doing so.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:40 pm UTC

Annnnnnnnnnnnd Godwinned. 3 pages. Gay people are Nazi's, yo.

Yes, people should be able to solicit a bakery to put whatever the fuck they want on a cake, especially if, as LaserGuy said, it is already a product they offer. Your analogy is flawed, as this photographer had to do literally nothing different.
Heisenberg wrote:This is based on an FDA requirement (read: Obama)
lolwut
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby PolakoVoador » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:46 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:You're wrong [links].

You've provided one fringe case on topic, which truthfully, I've not heard about and don't know enough about, and two examples of business owners denying service to someone based on their sexual orientation.

To the former, I'll have to read a bit more and see what's going on.
To the latter, yes, I absolutely support and am in favor of the notion that just because you are a private business owner you cannot discriminate against customers or employees. I'm not sure what you think those links are indicating, but to me, they're examples of bigotry being fought by the law, and equal rights moving forward as bigots don't get their way.


So, just to be absolutely clear, I should be able to make a Jewish bakery bake me a totenkopf cake for April 20th?

They weren't discriminating on sexual orientation, they were refusing to participate in an event that offended them. The bakery had baked cakes for the couple before - they just couldn't in good conscience participate in a gay wedding.


Unfortunatly, this specific discussion is counter-productive to this thread. I remember when it showed up in the past, and it is a rather complicated one, as it lies on very fuzzy grounds.
On one hand, I find terrible that, say, a photographer could say "I won't make a interracial wedding. Black people offend me"
On the other hand, I can't find a way to word this that won't make it obligatory for a black photographer to attend a KKK wedding, or something along the lines.

Ormurinn, what you have to understand is this: calling foul when an opressed minority wants to have a right you always had is really hipocrital. The idea is not to take anything away from anyone, but rather to grant something that would be otherwise denied to a part of the populace.

It's akin to claim that "I can't even hit my wife anymore without people calling me a monster and calling the cops! How can we have a functioning society if Men can't discipline their wifes when needed? This twitteratti opressors want to have everything their way!"

EDIT:
Izawwlgood wrote:Annnnnnnnnnnnd Godwinned. 3 pages. Gay people are Nazi's, yo.


In all fairness, the Nazi were mentioned back in page 2, by Zcorp, so the thread was already kind of Godwinned.
Last edited by PolakoVoador on Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:51 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:49 pm UTC

PolakoVoador wrote:On the other hand, I can't find a way to word this that won't make it obligatory for a black photographer to attend a KKK wedding, or something along the lines.
You mean if the KKK was paying a black photographer the same wages they'd pay a white one, effectively treating said black photographer as an equal to any white photographer?

Seems pretty cool to me.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby PolakoVoador » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:55 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
PolakoVoador wrote:On the other hand, I can't find a way to word this that won't make it obligatory for a black photographer to attend a KKK wedding, or something along the lines.
You mean if the KKK was paying a black photographer the same wages they'd pay a white one, effectively treating said black photographer as an equal to any white photographer?

Seems pretty cool to me.

But could said photographer refuse to work, because KKK offends him/her? Would you blame the photographer for not wanting to work with/for klansmen?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:05 pm UTC

Are the working conditions unreasonable? I mean, a wedding between two known klansmen (klanspeople?) may not include an iota of racism, and they may be perfectly respectful towards our hypothetical black photographer.

I guess, offhand, no, I would not find it reasonable for a black photographer to outright deny them service, but I would find it wholly acceptable for said photographer to say, perhaps during the negotiations, that they will walk if anyone utters any racial slurs or treats them inappropriately. Even adding a clause to that effect would be fine in my mind, because there's reason to believe there may be an issue.

Anyone remember a few years back when the WBC protested somewhere, their tires were slashed, and all of the local towing agencies refused to service their van? I felt that wasn't right.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:06 pm UTC

I think it's acceptable because of 'concerns about personal safety' or something. A homophobic photographer isn't in danger at a gay wedding, but a black photographer is at a Klan rally.

As for the WBC and tow trucks, given that the WBC are a bunch of opportunistic attorneys, I could see people refusing to do business with them on that rather than for other forms of bigotry. My sister is an attorney and you'd be surprised at the amount of discrimination she receives for her profession.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

stephen431
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:01 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby stephen431 » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:06 pm UTC

Out of curiosity... What was Eich's reputation prior to his Prop 8 donations becoming public?

I've seen multiple descriptions of him being a brilliant programmer, but I didn't see anyone except the chairwoman speak publicly in support of him personally or professionally.
I had read reports that the other board members who stepped down had done so because they disagreed with the direction that Eich wanted to take Mozilla in the future. That was well before there were calls for boycotts over the Prop 8 donations. Multiple board members deciding to step down over his promotion to CEO is significant.

It seems like he might have been disliked even before people knew of his Prop 8 donations. That includes people who had been working with him for 15 years at Mozilla. Since so few spoke out on his behalf, and so many spoke out against him, it seems like maybe he wasn't the best person to lead volunteers for a non-profit foundation. It seems like Prop 8 notwithstanding, maybe he was just a bad boss.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:07 pm UTC

PolakoVoador wrote:But could said photographer refuse to work, because KKK offends him/her? Would you blame the photographer for not wanting to work with/for klansmen?


Technically speaking, I don't believe that the KKK are a protected group and thus would not be covered by Civil Rights legislation.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Zamfir » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:17 pm UTC

@Stephen431, that does sound plausible, especially given the speed of the decision. People were just waiting for an opportunity to ditch him.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Belial » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:22 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
PolakoVoador wrote:But could said photographer refuse to work, because KKK offends him/her? Would you blame the photographer for not wanting to work with/for klansmen?


Technically speaking, I don't believe that the KKK are a protected group and thus would not be covered by Civil Rights legislation.


Yeah, this. Businesses are allowed to refuse you service because you're an asshole, they're just not allowed to refuse you service because you're $protectedgroup.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Chen
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Chen » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:29 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Technically speaking, I don't believe that the KKK are a protected group and thus would not be covered by Civil Rights legislation.


Yeah this is where the KKK analogy fails. Although I suppose a situation with a Christian photographer and a Satanist wedding could be similar. Religion is a protected class, so I'm not sure they'd be allowed to discriminate in that case. It's an easy situation to work around that still allows discrimination ("No I can't do the wedding because someone else booked me that day, not being I hate homosexuals"), but seems like the law is probably better to be kept in place than not.

Newt
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:33 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Newt » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:41 pm UTC

stephen431 wrote: Since so few spoke out on his behalf, and so many spoke out against him, it seems like maybe he wasn't the best person to lead volunteers for a non-profit foundation. It seems like Prop 8 notwithstanding, maybe he was just a bad boss.


I'm not sure that's entirely reasonable; even if you believed his contributions to the company/society outweighed his homophobia, supporting him is a good way to become a pariah in San Francisco.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:56 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:This is based on an FDA requirement (read: Obama)
lolwut

See, the FDA is under the Department of Health and Human Services, which is under the White House. So the people who could stop the federally-enforced discrimination against gay men are President Obama, Secretary Sibelius of HHS, and Commissioner Hamburg of the FDA.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby morriswalters » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:57 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
morriswalters wrote:My point is that like most "culture warriors" your close minded and not open to the fact that there are shades of grey.( as well as the color pink) You sound suspiciously like any number of other "culture warriors". Everybody is wrong but you. Nobody could ever have a different point of view that didn't make them a "homophobe" or whatever pejorative your using this week. You've just labeled seven million Californians, with a name that doesn't even have clear meaning. People are more than a one dimensional image. And they deserve to be treated as such, even if they don't agree with you. Gays certainly don't like it when it is done to them. You have one data point and base your barrage on that one instant of a mans life.

You are quite right, a lot of things are bad. This fight is the easy one. You can label, disparage, and otherwise make yourself sound like all the people you must hate. Today is bandwagon day. Climb on. Drag them "homophobes" into your better world. And at least in my limited reading the Gay community is not looking at this with unanimity. It doesn't have to be won this way.


I have no idea what most of this even means. Please become more coherent.

As near as I can tell, you're trying to say that the existence of multiple forms of badness in the world, and differing choices as to how to approach them, means that we shouldn't cast stones as to how people choose to prioritize what they fix.

I agree! In fact, I even agree that as far as LGBTQ rights go, marriage is not even the most important fight to be had. If you said "marriage is not a priority for me, I'd rather we focused effort on the homeless LGBTQ youth problem" I'd be like "Morriswalter, you have good ideas let's hang out".

Where I disagree, however, is where you extend this to people who are actively making it worse. Voting to remove (or bar) rights from another group of people based on their sexual orientation isn't a choice between making one thing better or making another (subjectively more important) thing better. It's a choice to actively make the world more oppressive and shitty, ie worse. Throwing up your hands and saying "I dunno man it's all shades of grey" doesn't change that.
I'll say it in small words. There are multiple ways of thinking. I don't care if you don't like that a man would support a cause he believes in, no matter how wrong headed it might be to you. He has to have the room to believe and support those beliefs. That idea lies behind voting. But before I condemn a man, I'd like to know that he is guilty of behavior that I find repugnant. Not does he think right, but does he live right. Did he do anything in his day to day behavior to discriminate? Did he follow the letter and the spirit of the law?

I don't particularly care how you think the world should be. Laws are passed all the time the disenfranchise one person or another, and we are a nation of laws. He has the right to speak his piece. And he shouldn't be punished for that. This type of crap is why the ballot is secret.

I don't trust people who tell me to live right by doing one thing or another. They say they mean well, but they lead the way with the rope when it comes time for a hanging party. I like a little more formal justice. So we could never set around discussing anything as people of like minds, because I would be waiting for you to get the rope for me if I disagreed with some righteously held position of yours.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:58 pm UTC

Except if you click on your link, you'll see it's policy enacted in 1992.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:07 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Except if you click on your link, you'll see it's policy enacted in 1992.

Oh. Well then. Carry on with your discriminatory policy.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:11 pm UTC

I'm... suggesting the opposite?

And that you writing 'read: Obama' was hilariously misaligned, since it wasn't his Presidency that put it into place.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

stephen431
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:01 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby stephen431 » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:13 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:@Stephen431, that does sound plausible, especially given the speed of the decision. People were just waiting for an opportunity to ditch him.


It's the people resigning even before the Prop 8 donation went public that makes me think there was something else there.

..and the fact that the donation was $1,000? Don't get me wrong, Prop 8 was terrible, but it took in millions of dollars in contributions. This was $1,000, donated 6 years ago. It just doesn't seem like the kind of "support" that would generate this kind of a response. I'm not trying to trivialize $1,000, but it's not the kind of sum (6 years removed) that makes your jaw drop and threaten to quit a job over. This call for Eich to resign generated more "heat" than the Ender's Game boycott and Orson Scott Card was on the board of the National Organization for Marriage.

If Eich had had just a few people standing up and saying "Hey I disagree with Eich's beliefs, but I've worked with him and he's really a good guy, and this was 6 years ago and it appears he hasn't donated anything since."... But nothing like that happened on his side. Not even from people employed outside of San Francisco. Just the sound of crickets...

People are rarely defined by one or two actions. The guy he really was, was somewhere in-between creating Javascript & donating to Prop 8. I get the sense that the real guy he was, "in-between", was kind of a jerk.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:13 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I think it's acceptable because of 'concerns about personal safety' or something. A homophobic photographer isn't in danger at a gay wedding, but a black photographer is at a Klan rally.

As for the WBC and tow trucks, given that the WBC are a bunch of opportunistic attorneys, I could see people refusing to do business with them on that rather than for other forms of bigotry. My sister is an attorney and you'd be surprised at the amount of discrimination she receives for her profession.


Personally, I would like the freedom to not do business with the WBC solely because of their obnoxious beliefs. Sure, in practice, they're going to be shunned anyway, regardless of what the law has to say about the matter, but why disguise the truth?

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:14 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I'm... suggesting the opposite?

And that you writing 'read: Obama' was hilariously misaligned, since it wasn't his Presidency that put it into place.
Right, it's his employees who have continued a discriminatory policy for the last 5 years. And he's the guy who can fix it with a phone call. So, as you'll see if you read the rest of my post, I recommend petitioning him if you want to change it.

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby WibblyWobbly » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:27 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:He has the right to speak his piece.


He did.

morriswalters wrote:And he shouldn't be punished for that.


Sorry. You can and should be judged by the company you keep. The ideas you espouse. The speech you make. The groups you support. The causes you champion. You are the sum of your actions, and your actions - from holding up a "God Hates Fags" sign to giving away your own life in order to feed, clothe and treat the illnesses of the poor and forgotten - these are the things that define our legacies and define how we relate to one another. The government did not limit his ability to make contributions to this campaign. That is the beginning and end of any "free speech" argument that anyone can make. You cannot be censored by the government. You had damn well better expect that you will be judged and - as the case may be - lauded or punished by society for the words you use, for the causes you support. Think before you open your mouth, before you open your wallet. Because you can and will and very rightly should be called to answer for the speech you so carelessly use.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:32 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Did he do anything in his day to day behavior to discriminate?
He supported an effort to deprive people I care about of their basic human rights. So yes, he is guilty of a behavior many of us find repugnant.

I don't care in the slightest if that was not his "day to day behavior", because it was still a thing that he voluntarily did and, together with the fact that he's apparently never retracted those beliefs, it very much reflects on who he is as a person today.

You meanwhile seem to think there's some kind of great impenetrable divide between repugnant actions done to support a belief and repugnant actions done to...whatever else it is you think people base their actions on.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

aoeu
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:58 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby aoeu » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:33 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
aoeu wrote:
setzer777 wrote:
aoeu wrote:
setzer777 wrote:
aoeu wrote:
Zcorp wrote:Right...you believe that I should be able to support Nazis, the KKK, and Child Rapists but because I'm a good programmer no one should refuse to work with me or stop purchasing what I'm selling.


On the contrary that is a well-accepted principle of democracy. It's also funny how you name niche groups, when B.E. was actually on the side of the majority.


It's a well-accepted principle of democracy that boycotts are wrong?

Over here (as well as a few US states) political activism is protected under employment law. And yes, the whole point of being a nation of laws is suppressing citizens' tribal instincts and substituting them with an actually efficient rule.


Right, that's an argument that Mozilla shouldn't have fired him. But unless you compel people to spend their money on a specific product, they can boycott anything they want. It's not a well-accepted principle of democracy that people shouldn't refrain from purchasing or using certain products on the basis of whatever feelings they have about the company.


I don't think you got the implications of this train of thought. Prop 8 was an even split. What do you think that means for Silicon Valley companies? There is roughly equal strength in numbers on both sides. Any boycott is going to be laughably ineffective at anything but ruining (more likely just slightly annoying the PR department of) a particular company, since the employees will just switch companies. The numbers would have to be quite a bit more skewed for it to go any other way.

It's a waste of everyone's energy. You ought to leave the politics to the politics.
Wait, are you seriously suggesting that because Prop 8 was a pretty even split at the state level, it must be an even split through each individual tech company? I've just gone through about two pages worth of this thread and may have missed something, but where are you getting that information from?

In fact, I thought I remembered reading that a *minority* of Silicon Valley funding went to support 8 rather than oppose it, meaning that bigots would be rather limited in their choice of welcoming new employers, should a bigoted company close as the result of a boycott.

You totally missed the point. The individual tech company hardly matters.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:39 pm UTC

aoeu wrote:You totally missed the point. The individual tech company hardly matters.
Yes, I missed your point. You should try making it better next time.

On what basis do you claim the individual tech company hardly matters? On what basis do you believe that the financial liability that results from being openly bigoted and earning your company a boycott will never have any effect on how companies do business?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby cphite » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:41 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Refusal to work with someone is the definition of intolerance, and I refuse to take part in it whether it comes from the left or the right. And I intend to call it out every time it happens.


Nah, I'm gonna go ahead and say that donating money to the fight to deprive others of rights is the definition of intolerance. Refusing to work for or give money to someone because they've shown a willingness to spend the profits of my labor/custom directly on efforts to marginalize me or people I care about is just called having a sense of self-interest.

And people who tell you that you're obligated to help the people who are trying to oppress you? That you're obligated to directly contribute to your own marginalization? They are not your friends.


But see, here's the thing... I am willing to bet you that a pretty sizable number of the folks who agree with getting rid of Brendan Eich are going to have no problem donating to Hillary Clinton in 2016, should she decide to run, despite her long-standing support of traditional marriage. Just like they had no problem supporting Barack Obama for holding the exact same position. All the while, by the way, condemning the republican candidates for having - again - the exact same position.

The same holds true whether you're talking about politics, business, celebrities, or whatever. Some people are given a pass; others are not. Some people can make a stupid remark or donate to a stupid cause, can apologize and all is forgiven; others can apologize all they want and it doesn't matter. In the end, it comes down to how well the person is liked by the right people.

Quite frankly, that makes it seems like the real point is less about defending rights, and more about using rights as political leverage.

And for the record, I am strongly in favor of the rights of people to marry whoever they want. I find the very notion of the government - or anybody - trying to deny people that right to be offensive.

However, I am just as offended by the hypocrisy of holding some people accountable for their positions and not others; especially when it is so blatantly based on their overall political affiliations.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby setzer777 » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:45 pm UTC

Obama did have the distinct advantage of being able to say "It's me or the Republicans". Unfortunately for Brendan Eich, his replacement isn't guaranteed to be far worse.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:57 pm UTC

cphite wrote:But see, here's the thing... I am willing to bet you that a pretty sizable number of the folks who agree with getting rid of Brendan Eich are going to have no problem donating to Hillary Clinton in 2016, should she decide to run, despite her long-standing support of traditional marriage. Just like they had no problem supporting Barack Obama for holding the exact same position. All the while, by the way, condemning the republican candidates for having - again - the exact same position.


Well, overall Obama's positions, and those enacted by his government on LGBT rights have been pretty positive. He has certainly expressed some ambivalence on the specific issue of same-sex marriage, but despite that, he's probably been one of the most LGBT-friendly presidents in history. Given that his competition (to be fair, Romney is much more liberal in his views on this matter), was quite opposed to all of the LBGT-friendly policies he enacted, it's hardly surprising that activists on these issues sided with Obama given the paucity of available alternatives.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby PolakoVoador » Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:23 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Belial wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Refusal to work with someone is the definition of intolerance, and I refuse to take part in it whether it comes from the left or the right. And I intend to call it out every time it happens.


Nah, I'm gonna go ahead and say that donating money to the fight to deprive others of rights is the definition of intolerance. Refusing to work for or give money to someone because they've shown a willingness to spend the profits of my labor/custom directly on efforts to marginalize me or people I care about is just called having a sense of self-interest.

And people who tell you that you're obligated to help the people who are trying to oppress you? That you're obligated to directly contribute to your own marginalization? They are not your friends.


But see, here's the thing... I am willing to bet you that a pretty sizable number of the folks who agree with getting rid of Brendan Eich are going to have no problem donating to Hillary Clinton in 2016, should she decide to run, despite her long-standing support of traditional marriage. Just like they had no problem supporting Barack Obama for holding the exact same position. All the while, by the way, condemning the republican candidates for having - again - the exact same position.


While I agree with you that some people receive way more backlash than others, it doesn't mean said backlash is unfair.

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Isaac Hill » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:01 pm UTC

If it's socially acceptable for Eich to try to use the government to force others to live by his religious beliefs, but it's not socially acceptable to pressure Eich in response, then the only person not expected to make a personal sacrifice for Eich's religion is Eich himself. That isn't right. They are Eich's beliefs, and no one else owes him anything for them.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

aoeu
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:58 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby aoeu » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:12 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:@Stephen431, that does sound plausible, especially given the speed of the decision. People were just waiting for an opportunity to ditch him.

If they had wanted to ditch him they would not have made him the CEO.
Isaac Hill wrote:If it's socially acceptable for Eich to try to use the government to force others to live by his religious beliefs, but it's not socially acceptable to pressure Eich in response, then the only person not expected to make a personal sacrifice for Eich's religion is Eich himself. That isn't right. They are Eich's beliefs, and no one else owes him anything for them.

What, you think he has changed his mind now?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:16 pm UTC

aoeu wrote:
Isaac Hill wrote:If it's socially acceptable for Eich to try to use the government to force others to live by his religious beliefs, but it's not socially acceptable to pressure Eich in response, then the only person not expected to make a personal sacrifice for Eich's religion is Eich himself. That isn't right. They are Eich's beliefs, and no one else owes him anything for them.

What, you think he has changed his mind now?
Who said anything about thinking he's changed his mind? Like, seriously, where did that idea you just had even come from? No one is saying that.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Forest Goose
Posts: 377
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 9:27 am UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Forest Goose » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:47 pm UTC

cphite wrote:The same holds true whether you're talking about politics, business, celebrities, or whatever. Some people are given a pass; others are not. Some people can make a stupid remark or donate to a stupid cause, can apologize and all is forgiven; others can apologize all they want and it doesn't matter. In the end, it comes down to how well the person is liked by the right people.

Quite frankly, that makes it seems like the real point is less about defending rights, and more about using rights as political leverage.

And for the record, I am strongly in favor of the rights of people to marry whoever they want. I find the very notion of the government - or anybody - trying to deny people that right to be offensive.

However, I am just as offended by the hypocrisy of holding some people accountable for their positions and not others; especially when it is so blatantly based on their overall political affiliations.


(not putting words in your mouth regarding your conclusions)

But, the proper conclusion to this would be that there are additional people who require greater scrutiny, not that those whose positions are being scrutinized should receive less scrutiny. That someone got away with something is not a defense for doing that thing. If the last five customers at the market shoplifted in front of the owner (who is lazy) and walked out of the store without consequence, I am not suddenly entitled to shoplift on account of this, nor is the owner somehow wrong for doing something about me shoplifting - the excused bad behaviour of others neither absolves me of responsibility for mine, nor does it make wrong those who call me out on my behaviour.

We, as people, are not - and could not possibly be - obligated to respond maximally to every case of wrong doing, we have limited resources and our own agendas - and comparisons like the one you are making are never as cut and dry as they seem. We have to pick and chose our battles, if I want to loudly complain about this, but remain quiet on Obama*, I am not somehow a worse person than someone who remained quiet with regards to both - better to be a half right hypocrite than consistently silent.

*I'm not conceding that you are right in your Obama comments, just taking it for granted for the sake of making the point.
Forest Goose: A rare, but wily, form of goose; best known for dropping on unsuspecting hikers, from trees, to steal sweets.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Belial » Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:10 am UTC

Isaac Hill wrote:If it's socially acceptable for Eich to try to use the government to force others to live by his religious beliefs, but it's not socially acceptable to pressure Eich in response, then the only person not expected to make a personal sacrifice for Eich's religion is Eich himself. That isn't right. They are Eich's beliefs, and no one else owes him anything for them.


Yeah, that's exactly what I'm getting from this. "How dare anyone inconvenience this guy in any way, but it's totally cool for him to try to strip rights from a whole class of other folks. God bless america."
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

stephen431
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:01 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby stephen431 » Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:15 am UTC

aoeu wrote:
Zamfir wrote:@Stephen431, that does sound plausible, especially given the speed of the decision. People were just waiting for an opportunity to ditch him.

If they had wanted to ditch him they would not have made him the CEO.

I don't believe any of the people who made him CEO were the people asking for his resignation. 3 of the 6 remaining board members (2 were former Mozilla CEOs) resigned when Brendan was promoted to CEO. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal (and elsewhere) that all 3 were opposed to Eich running Mozilla. The statements they gave were that they wanted a CEO from outside of Mozilla's board, and someone who would better develop the Mozilla OS for mobile. Additionally Mozilla's COO (and their acting CEO) also resigned on the day Eich was promoted. The company had lost 6 of their top executives in the past year. Eich makes it 7. There are multiple reports of "old guard vs. new guard" political infighting among Mozilla leadership. Eich and Mitchell Baker are noted as Mozilla's co-founders (old guard). They would have run Mozilla as CEO and Chairwoman. I think there's more to this than just a Prop 8 donation.

There are people at Google, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, etc that all donated more than Eich did.
http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Belial » Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:19 am UTC

And if any of those people were the CEOs of any of those companies, I'd be *pretty* pissed with them
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

stephen431
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:01 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby stephen431 » Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:34 am UTC

Belial wrote:And if any of those people were the CEOs of any of those companies, I'd be *pretty* pissed with them


Meg Whitman is president and CEO of HP. Big supporter of Prop 8. Campaigned in support of it.

I believe she is still on the boards of directors of Zipcar and Procter & Gamble.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:50 am UTC

She has also since reversed her opinion, and came out in favor of gay marriage more than a year ago.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... -case.html
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:09 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:She has also since reversed her opinion, and came out in favor of gay marriage more than a year ago.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... -case.html
This is what I was saying; there has been nothing from Eich about changing his position, regretting his actions, supporting equality. That last one is key; I think people are generally a forgiving bunch when someone is making effort to turn over a new leaf.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Carlington » Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:48 am UTC

I don't want to go back through the three pages I've missed and pull a bunch of quotes out to respond to, so I'm making this post as a general response to the pro-Eich side of this discussion.

If I'm understanding you all correctly, your main hangups about this are:
  1. Eich has the right to say whatever he wants, no matter how offensive it is, and he must not be punished for this;
    Which breaks down into
    1. Eich has the right to say whatever he wants, no matter how offensive it is; and
    2. He must not be punished for this.
    and:
  2. You're being arbitrary in singling out Eich, you should hold your position consistently, or not at all

To preface, if I'm not getting that right, please let me know - this post will be written as a response to my above-listed understanding of your (plural) position.

To respond to point 1, I will split it into two parts, as I have above, and address each separately:
As far as 1a is concerned, I agree with you completely. Of course, everybody should have the right to say whatever they want, and I would never argue this. Point 1b, however, seems to boil down to crying First Amendment; and, as always seems to be the case when I see that argument used on the internet, it's not being applied properly here. The right to free speech refers to a legally-enshrined protection which prevents governments from silencing people. Refusing to do business with somebody on the grounds that you disagree with them is not a violation of somebody's right to free speech, and to suggest that it is betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of what the right to free speech actually is. To sum that up: If the government had Eich arrested for supporting Prop 8, or threatened him or his livelihood, etc. - that's a violation of his First Amendment rights and is, without dispute, a Bad Thing™. That's not what happened here. What happened here is that Eich supported Prop 8, and people who opposed Prop 8 subsequently decided not to do things which benefitted him anymore. That's okay. That's how a market economy works. That's how consumers exercise power within the system.

As for point 2, that's a valid criticism. People should act consistently on their beliefs. However, the only reason Eich has been singled out, in this case, is that somebody drew attention to the fact that he supported Prop 8. Moreover, they only pointed this out to people who were already contributing to Eich's success - namely, users of Mozilla Firefox (and potentially also people who were falsifying their user agent strings for whatever reason, I guess?). Aside from this, none of the examples that were provided are actually relevant here. None of the people in tech companies were the CEO of their company, and indeed, none of them seemed to have any sort of public-facing role, either. That is to say, none of their jobs require maintaining good PR with the user base the way Eich's job did. As for the politicians, that example would make sense if the only political issue forever was non-hetero marriage. But it's not. It's almost as if people decide which candidate/party to vote for based on an entire political platform, covering a wide range of political issues and general matters of policy.

So, to sum up:
  1. A boycott does not violate anybody's right to free speech; and
  2. If we boycott one homophobic CEO's company, we should boycott them all. Except, that...actually does seem to happen, in general (cf. Mozilla, Chick-Fil-A...)
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests