Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

Recommended Videos

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
According to some folks here, publicly supporting discrimination of gays seems to be totally fine, but deciding to not use the products of someone who is publicly discriminating is not. Because clearly I'm free to be a bigot, but I'm not free to decide not to associate with a bigot. Because we all know that freedom of speech, of choice, of business and so on applies to some more than it does to others, right?
 

Nocturnus

New member
Oct 2, 2007
108
0
0
Umm... welcome to this notion of... choice.

People can choose not to use the browser for whatever reason they want to: From just liking another one better, to not supporting an employee that they think is a douchebag, to not liking it because the buttons are blue or something.

If enough people stop using that browser, then the company hurts, and it has to make a decision to help preserve said company.

An employee, likewise, has a choice to NOT remain in a job that they don't like... yes, even if it's because of a supervisor/CEO they don't agree with. That's their decision.

Enough employees leave, then once again, the company hurts, and it has to make a decision to help preserve said company.

Put two and two together, and with all accounts pointing to one person, doesn't matter what he believes. He could have attacked My Little Pony, and ... The Brony Fansite could have done the same thing. If it impacts the business in a significant way? I'd bet that he'd be gone too.

This is putting away all my feelings about how I think the CEO is a bigot, but hey... at the end of the day, business will be business.
 

Nocturnus

New member
Oct 2, 2007
108
0
0
CloudAtlas said:
According to some folks here, publicly supporting discrimination of gays seems to be totally fine, but deciding to not use the products of someone who is publicly discriminating is not. Because clearly I'm free to be a bigot, but I'm not free to decide not to associate with a bigot. Because we all know that freedom of speech, of choice, of business and so on applies to some more than it does to others, right?
You just said it a lot better than I did. :) Great post.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
chikusho said:
Strazdas said:
you have been personally hurt by Eich? Did he hit you? did you call the police?
He supported a law, which is his legal right as US citizen, which was later supported by 52% of California voters. why are you singling him out? What exactly has he done to you?
Not me. His employees.
Also, yeah, just as it's his right as a US citizen to donate to this organisation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
The fact that it's legal doesn't make it any less tasteless.
Just going to skip over the mentioned fact that this was all because he supported a law that the majority of Californians also voted for, huh?

Believing that the term marriage actually means something doesn't make him a gay hater or something like that. It just means that he, like most Americans, doesn't understand that a Marriage license has nothing to do with the religious and cultural ceremony of the same name any more. This confusion was true when the license was first created to prevent minorities from marrying whites (look it up, not joking. Through the mid 19th century common law marriages were standard and then circa the civil war things changed to accommodate the changes). The fact that this license born out of racism is still in existence and is still be used to prevent certain unions is hilariously backwards. But the confusion makes sense in light of this. Even though it no longer really legislates what ministers can do it's still perceived as part of the marriage process.

Now, I don't give two shits what two consenting adults decide to do with one another. But I can look at this situation objectively and acknowledge that there are reasons outside of bigotry why people may hold onto this position in such large numbers.
 

Fsyco

New member
Feb 18, 2014
313
0
0
BigTuk said:
Flatfrog said:
BigTuk said:
Does it matter if a police man is gay? Nope. Does it matter if a fireman is gay? Nope. Does it Matter if a Lawyer is gay? Nope. So why should it matter if a CEO is anti-gay.. or at least anti-gay marriage.. The two are not mutually inclusive.
Once again, even though this shouldn't need explaining. Being gay is not a choice. Being anti-gay is a choice.
You cannot prove either of those statements. For all you know being anti-gay may be due to certain genetic predisposition when combined with specific hormone and behavioural conditioning. It's really hard to say how much of our behaviour or of how we think is choice or predetermined.
You're close. Morality is linked to your sense of disgust, not anything logical. Homosexuality is 'gross', and therefore many people think it's wrong. So being anti-gay is kind of not a choice. In fact, almost all your decisions are not a choice (conservatives and liberals have different brain structures, for example). There's actually a term for when something is considered 'wrong' for no rational reason: moral confoundment (If i remember correctly, anyway.) It's why a lot of abnormal behavior is considered wrong or shameful. There are pretty much zero logical arguments against homosexuality, masturbation, or watching porn, but people think they're nasty and deem them bad.

Anyone interested can read more here: http://www.epjournal.net/blog/2012/11/disgust-morality/
 

balfore

New member
Nov 9, 2006
74
0
0
Lightknight said:
chikusho said:
Strazdas said:
you have been personally hurt by Eich? Did he hit you? did you call the police?
He supported a law, which is his legal right as US citizen, which was later supported by 52% of California voters. why are you singling him out? What exactly has he done to you?
Not me. His employees.
Also, yeah, just as it's his right as a US citizen to donate to this organisation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
The fact that it's legal doesn't make it any less tasteless.
Just going to skip over the mentioned fact that this was all because he supported a law that the majority of Californians also voted for, huh?

Believing that the term marriage actually means something doesn't make him a gay hater or something like that. It just means that he, like most Americans, doesn't understand that a Marriage license has nothing to do with the religious and cultural ceremony of the same name any more. This confusion was true when the license was first created to prevent minorities from marrying whites (look it up, not joking. Through the mid 19th century common law marriages were standard and then circa the civil war things changed to accommodate the changes). The fact that this license born out of racism is still in existence and is still be used to prevent certain unions is hilariously backwards. But the confusion makes sense in light of this. Even though it no longer really legislates what ministers can do it's still perceived as part of the marriage process.

Now, I don't give two shits what two consenting adults decide to do with one another. But I can look at this situation objectively and acknowledge that there are reasons outside of bigotry why people may hold onto this position in such large numbers.
See one big problem (With the majority of the posts here) is that they are generalizing and assuming that this is just because of the Prop 8 support. Take a few minutes and read a few other sources, any company that has half of its Board of Directors resign after he was appointed CEO has much more to do with him immediately resigning than the OKCupid post.

Source:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/28/three-mozilla-board-members-resign-over-choice-of-new-ceo/
 

ThatDarnCoyote

New member
Dec 3, 2011
224
0
0
Lightknight said:
This is why I keep advocating to stop calling the government issued license a marriage license. It blurs the line between government and religious/cultural practices in a system people generally insist on being separate. These people don't think that they're preventing gays' access to unions, they just think that they're protecting a term that means something to them. Most of the people I've spoken with don't care about the actual rights involved and just care about the term. That's why Civil unions have become a thing. An attempt to give all the rights of marriage without controversially stepping on the actual term marriage (even though a marriage license shouldn't be confused with a marriage ceremony).
Agreed. It would be nice to see the government uncouple (heh) itself from the religious and cultural aspects of marriage. Just let people enter into civil union type contracts, which would still be registered with the government for tax and estate purposes, etc., and then arrange their affairs as they see fit. The people involved are then free to call it what they like.

TheRealCJ said:
And by the way, nobody forced him to resign. After he was elected CEO, many people voiced their displeasure with the decision (Several Mozilla board members resigned in protest, in fact).
That's actually a matter of some dispute [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/28/three-mozilla-board-members-resign-over-choice-of-new-ceo/]. Two of the three departing board members had already announced they were leaving after the CEO search was completed. It also seems to be the case that their chief objection to Eich was that they wanted a CEO from outside the organization, preferably someone from the mobile-browser sector, an area where Firefox was lagging and wished to catch up.

Oops, I see balfore has made the same point here:
balfore said:
See one big problem (With the majority of the posts here) is that they are generalizing and assuming that this is just because of the Prop 8 support. Take a few minutes and read a few other sources, any company that has half of its Board of Directors resign after he was appointed CEO has much more to do with him immediately resigning than the OKCupid post.

Source:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/28/three-mozilla-board-members-resign-over-choice-of-new-ceo/
 

NortherWolf

New member
Jun 26, 2008
235
0
0
People trying to make the world a less hateful place by fighting against discrimination and segregation= Horrible human beings who should be shamed if not shot and despoiled.

Rich guy who advocates and supports segregation laws=Innocent hero, Mr America.

What is wrong with the world today?
 

EiMitch

New member
Nov 20, 2013
88
0
0
Ninmecu said:
You know what? I'll bite. In six years the average societal trend regarding homosexuality being evil or detracting from our society as a whole, has dramatically shifted in favor of homosexual beings being accepted as a normal thing and a large part of our collective make up. In six years we've gone from bigot statements being widespread on the basis of "Muh freedomz" to a man who worked hard stepping down as CEO for a bigoted statement he made when it was still normal to make, you guessed it, a bigoted statement.
First of all, "better than" doesn't mean good. So we're more accepting of LGBTs than we used to be. As if that was a high bar to jump. Things used to be worse, therefore people should just stfu and accept the status quo. Thats what your argument boils down to, and its bs.

Second, he didn't just "say" something bigoted. He provided material support to the passage of a law that denied LGBTs the right to marry, a basic right most people take for granted.

And painting Eich as a victim being punished for exercising his freedom of expression, (nevermind that he did more than that) by other people who were just exercising their freedom of expression, is frankly a double-standard. If Eich was simply stating his opinion, (and again, he wasn't only doing that) then so were the people who protested. Saying that LGBTs should've stfu about this and painting Eich as a victim is to inevitably imply that only Eich's rights matter and the protestors don't have any such rights to free expression. And mocking this as "Muh Freezomz" doesn't hide the hypocrisy inherent in your argument.

Ninmecu said:
People change-but that doesn't matter, the man has a right to his beliefs, no matter how bigoted we might feel they are, they're his, he's just as protected by free speech as any other,
Except the protestors, apparently.
Ninmecu said:
There are far worse scenarios out there and nothing good has come of this situation,
Again with the "there are bigger fish to fry and the smaller battles don't matter, because culture can be changed overnight with a magic bullet" meme.

Ninmecu said:
just a man who held a belief and lost what he probably desired for many years because Social Justice for the Win.
Again, he didn't just "held a belief," he codified discrimination into law and denied LGBTs a basic right. To say he is a victim of backlash from the (actual) victims of his discrimination is pretty much the definition of the reverse-victim meme, of which I have repeatedly stated that I'm sick to death and zombie reanimation and getting my undead brains splattered by wide-gauge shotgun. LGBTs were actual victims of discrimination. Eich helped make said discrimination into law. Calling Eich a victim because his victims protested is bs.
 

TheIceQueen

New member
Sep 15, 2013
420
0
0
Strazdas said:
GrinningCat said:
You're right. People should keep making sure to help financially support a person who financially supported organizations that tried, and this particular one had some success, to continue oppressing people just because of "deeply-held religious beliefs." Whether or not it was his money or Mozilla's is a distinction without a difference; he gets his paycheck from them and I'd rather not do anything on my part to put money in the hands of a guy who helped in an attempt to take away human rights if I can help it. Though, thankfully, Firefox is such a shit browser that I jumped that ship five years ago anyways.

Finally, I've said this over (and over).
People should base their decision to support or not support Firefox based on what mozilla, as a company, does. Mozilla, as a company, are LBGT friendly. What any of company employes believe in their personal lives is none of your business. Brendan Eich has never done anything illegal or discriminatory against LBGT. What he did was exercising his legal civil right in donating money to a political campaign for reasons we do not know and never will know unless we learn to read minds. He did it as individual, from his personal money. Mozilla,as a company, has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Your money/speech divide has been proven false by both posters here and US supreme court. Of course, you have a right to believe it if you want, just like i have a right to call bullshit on it.
My money and speech divide is for a clear reason. If I, in any way, give money to a person to a person who then, or has, turns around and gives it to a campaign so directly opposed to me, and I find out about it, the only logical thing to do would be to stop giving them money. The reason that I make a distinction between speech and money is that I can choose to address or ignore someone's opinion and nothing about my day will have been changed, but the moment money is involved that's when I have to ask myself the question: Could I have contributed to that? Because that's the moment that my own being has been given as a spear to stab my person.

You can say whatever the hell you want, that's your right to free speech. You can attack me viciously for all I care. But my line is etched in stone and crossed over the moment money is spent because I can't contribute or support someone who's going to use that to attack me.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
balfore said:
See one big problem (With the majority of the posts here) is that they are generalizing and assuming that this is just because of the Prop 8 support. Take a few minutes and read a few other sources, any company that has half of its Board of Directors resign after he was appointed CEO has much more to do with him immediately resigning than the OKCupid post.

Source:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/28/three-mozilla-board-members-resign-over-choice-of-new-ceo/
This has nothing to do with what we've been talking about but he resigned and they issued a public statement that Mozilla supports all kinds of people and equality, indicating it was indeed related to the OKcupid situation.

People resign all the time when a CEO gets hired that they don't want (or that isn't them).
 

ToastiestZombie

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,689
0
0
Why are you lot still here when this site uses Javascript? Shouldn't you at least be downloading NoScript or something?

And before you ask me what I'm on about, look at the History section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript
 

balfore

New member
Nov 9, 2006
74
0
0
Lightknight said:
balfore said:
See one big problem (With the majority of the posts here) is that they are generalizing and assuming that this is just because of the Prop 8 support. Take a few minutes and read a few other sources, any company that has half of its Board of Directors resign after he was appointed CEO has much more to do with him immediately resigning than the OKCupid post.

Source:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/28/three-mozilla-board-members-resign-over-choice-of-new-ceo/
This has nothing to do with what we've been talking about but he resigned and they issued a public statement that Mozilla supports all kinds of people and equality, indicating it was indeed related to the OKcupid situation.

People resign all the time when a CEO gets hired that they don't want (or that isn't them).
It has a lot to do with the topic, as in it is directly related to the title of the original post. However though Board members typically don't resign after a CEO is selected. And they issued that statement as well in regards to the fact that their own employees were publicly denouncing him on twitter, but his overall resignation most likely has more to do with the Board members leaving as well.
 

Ratty

New member
Jan 21, 2014
848
0
0
nikago said:
NortherWolf said:
People trying to make the world a less hateful place by fighting against discrimination and segregation= Horrible human beings who should be shamed if not shot and despoiled.

Rich guy who advocates and supports segregation laws=Innocent hero, Mr America.

What is wrong with the world today?
by digging up 6 year old donations to act on your bullying parade to attack a guy and, do not try and spin around you yourself just said "Horrible human beings who should be shamed if not shot and despoiled."when you say that you are not "right" you are advocating murder.
So whenever people choose not to use a product because they don't like the people running it, it's murder? Better tell that to all the people who boycotted Oreos when they came out in support of gay marriage then.

I'm seeing a lot of people claiming people are "bullies" for holding bigots accountable for trying to keep others from having equal rights under the law. So trying to limit equal rights isn't bullying, but not supporting a product (i. e. practicing capitalism) is?

ToastiestZombie said:
Why are you lot still here when this site uses Javascript? Shouldn't you at least be downloading NoScript or something?

And before you ask me what I'm on about, look at the History section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript
Who says we don't?

captcha: "take it all" lol.
 

ToastiestZombie

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,689
0
0
Ratty said:
Who says we don't?
What do you mean? You pretty much have to use Javascript on the Escapist to use the captcha, quote people, play videos and pretty much do anything except view an adless, nonworking site. Oh, and you know what other site uses Javascript yet publicly hates Mozilla for this? OKCupid.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,378
0
0
kiri2tsubasa said:
Unless I am misunderstanding you, you actually can look up who made the donations. By California law if you donate $100 or more to a political campaign or potential law then your information is public and anyone can look up who made the contributions, where they live, and how much of a donation was made.
Well then! Here we have it, I'd be interested to see how many people act on that information (and just who it's available to, mind, I mean, is it restricted to US citizens, etc?). But if that's so, well, there's a lot of room for more action here - of course, hopefully a tad more on the level, as I say usually, criticism is OK, public shaming, not so much.
 

Ratty

New member
Jan 21, 2014
848
0
0
ToastiestZombie said:
Ratty said:
Who says we don't?
What do you mean? You pretty much have to use Javascript on the Escapist to use the captcha, quote people, play videos and pretty much do anything except view an adless, nonworking site. Oh, and you know what other site uses Javascript yet publicly hates Mozilla for this? OKCupid.
I see. I was talking more about noscript. You do assume that nobody here is using it because anyone who admitted they did would be banned pretty swiftly. *shrugs* I do remember I uninstalled javascript a few years ago, but then had to reinstall it because it's so ubiquitous.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
First off, let me be very clear on this. I think anyone should be able to get "married". It is not my business what two consenting adults agree to between one another. In no way should this be viewed as anything in support of the guy's position itself. This is just intended to serve as defense of anti-discrimination laws that protect minorities and our ability to speak freely in this country and this is an objective view of the people who do support traditional marriage. It's time we have an honest talk about the difference between hate and defending a tradition, even if we don't agree with them that marriage licenses are the same thing as the marriage practice.

NortherWolf said:
People trying to make the world a less hateful place by fighting against discrimination and segregation= Horrible human beings who should be shamed if not shot and despoiled.

Rich guy who advocates and supports segregation laws=Innocent hero, Mr America.

What is wrong with the world today?
By no means is he some innocent hero. That's not the point at all. I mean, if anything he may have been turned into the everyman's anti-discrimination martyr. The problem is that OKCupid advocated boycotting a product (even if just on their site) because they did not discriminate against a person based on their beliefs and political affiliations. This indicates that they support discriminating against people based on religion, belief, and/or political positions. The LGBT community of all communities should be mindful of the importance of such anti-discriminatory practices.

So just that is enough to get up in arms against OKCupid's protest. Just in the name of anti-discriminatory hiring. Everyone should be in favor of maintaining these anti-discrimination laws to make ensure that they're still there for us and our children.

Now, as for what he did. He supported a law that more than half of Californian voters supported. This is supposedly a law that at the time was supported by around 60% of Americans (I believe that number has since dropped to much closer to 50% but I don't have the exact numbers for today). So this is a group demonizing a man for holding a majority opinion. This would indicate that they feel like 60% of Americans should be unhireable for the same reasons they feel this man shouldn't have been hired.

Let's address the issue itself. Marriage licenses. Believing that "marriage" is specifically between a man and a woman does not equate to believing that gays are evil or shouldn't have all the same rights that marriage entails. That you and others automatically make that leap is unfortunate and a mistake in my opinion. Many of the people who support "traditional marriage" that I've debated with believe that civil unions should have all the same rights but just that marriage should remain the term for male/female marriage specifically. This all comes down to confusion over the use of the word marriage in the name of the license. Because the government appropriated this term in the mid-19th century as a way to control marriages between minorities and whites (civil war shenanigans), the general conscious still associates the license itself with the religious and cultural ceremony of marriage. As such, these people believe that they're defending the definition of a personal and cultural tradition rather than just the tax and benefits document that it actually is today. The best step to take would actually be to get rid of the term marriage in the license just to further separate church and state.

Their confusion over what that actual term is for doesn't somehow automatically translate into them being homophobic or orientation segregationists. Sometimes words have meanings and people ascribe actual definitions to them that they hold to be true. I mean, this man could very well be one of those bad things but we don't know that and that's besides the point. You should not be discriminated against on the bases of religion, belief, or political affiliation.
 

forgo911

New member
Feb 26, 2014
48
0
0
Disgusting. I have lost all respect for that movement. What they did is unspeakable and deserves to be punished. Correct me if I'm wrong (there have got to be some lawyers on this site) but the CEO can and should sue the living shit out of OkCupid for what they did.

If this is how the LGBT is going to act, I will oppose it with every fiber of my being.
 

EiMitch

New member
Nov 20, 2013
88
0
0
Strazdas said:
No. There is adifference between a CEO private opinion expression and a website plastering its politics to every user.
Providing material support to passing a discriminatory bill into law isn't just a "private expression." The law, by definition, is public.

But that isn't the most bizarre part. You're saying that you personally expressing your opinion by not using a company's service is not a witch-hunt. Whereas other folks doing the same thing is. Because, unlike them, you're not plastering your opinion on your own website, just the Escapist. Thats totally different. /sarc

Is that what you're saying? Because its either that or "you can express whatever belief you want so long as you stfu about it." Either way, you're a hypocrite.

I'm really getting sick of this. Its not just you Strazdas. Everyone painting Eich as a victim is using the same rationale: Contributing financial support to the passage of a discriminatory law is nothing more than expressing a belief. Whereas protesting, which really is just expressing a belief, is going too far. There is no rational way to deny this is not only a double-standard, but an outright inversion. So folks keep steering the conversation away from that to trivial hairsplitting, even if that means going off-topic completely.

You're basically just repeating yourselves, and as a result, so am I. But you did accomplish two things, which I thought were impossible: making me even more sick and tired of the reverse-victim meme, and making that trope sound even more stupid and disingenuous.

At this point, I should probably say something like "thats it, I'm done, I'm out, peace" but to be honest, this discussion has actually been over for awhile now. I'm just belatedly signing the death certificate and making it official.