Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[Flatfrog]

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.

Not a lawyer, but hell no. What on earth would they sue them for? They stated some facts and their opinion about those facts, and they gave their users a clear option to continue using the site with Firefox if they chose. OkCupid's lawyers would eat up any law suit and spit it out.

 

[WoodenPlanck]

[. . .]These are the folks who honestly believe that persecuting others = their moral duty. And not always getting their way every single time = being persecuted. How do you propose to appease and/or outwit people that delusional? --Spoiler alert!-- You can't! And if it were possible, I'd still rather confront them head on.[. . .]

Based on how I've seen you posting EiMitch I would have been thrilled if you had actually been going "head on" with your detractors, instead of immediately dismissing the difficult arguments pointing to your flaws in reasoning, inventing definitions based on your personal bias and not what is actually based in the law or in the context of the current situation, and pretending that being sarcastic actually passes as an argument. At least I can hand it to you that you make yourself clear in your projection onto your opposition, which makes understanding where you are coming from easy though rather frustrating, as you pointed out yourself.

Anyone who says he didn't deserve it is either a contrarian for contrary's sake or a closet-bigot grasping at straws to avoid admitting that they just hate teh gheys.

Perhaps I can point out the flaw in your conclusion using your own style, I hope that it will make more sense to you that way. Ugh! I'm tired of people using this false dichotomy trope! Anyone who says that this issue is black and white is either trying to create controversy, or is in the close-minded-closet grasping at straws to avoid admitting that there might be any validity in any other position.

Ugh! I cannot believe the sheer amount of reverse-victim crap in the first page alone. I am so sick of this trope that I hate it with a psychotic and otherwise unhealthy passion.
[. . .]
To reiterate, I am sick to death of this reverse-victim trope.

Just because someone calls something "memes" and "tropes" doesn't invalidate those arguments, and trying to pre-emptively assassinate others' credibility before you engage them in an argument isn't good, right, equitable or honest. If anything what other people have been arguing can't actually be considered a trope, if anything your arguments have been laden with inaccurate rhetorical devices.

To those who ask "what did this accomplish?" I ask: do you think LGBTs have equal rights today? Do you think cultural attitudes change overnight? Is there a magic wand to solve these problems with just one wave? Or are these things changed over time? Do such long-term changes occur in a vacuum with everyone involved complacently accepting the status quo until it magically disappears? Or are these changes the result of a momentum built on the many smaller but hard-won battles?

That someone can be successfully shamed for hating on LGBTs is a sign that we're going in the right direction. To turn that around and say thats reason to not shame them is to rationalize allowing bigots to get away with their prejudice. Screw that.

Except the man in question wasn't "shamed", the company he represented was targeted, his lively-hood was targeted, as was the lively-hood (unjustly so) of those who were in Mozilla, some of whom are probably supporters of gay marriage. Sure he probably isn't hurting but that doesn't justify some flawed idea of group punishment for underlings that had nothing to do with it. If you acknowledge the social ball, or advantage, is in your court wouldn't it be better to extend a hand and prove that your position is actually just instead of demanding someone else bow to your collective unilaterally? That second part sounds more like a tyrant than someone freedom fighting for justice, or love or whatever it is that people claim to be fighting for. It certainly makes me doubt that claim.

To those who call LGBTs petty over this, I ask: would you call black people petty for demanding someone who supported racial segregation to step down? In principle, its the same thing.

Ahh the "all oppression is equal" trope. I personally find that kind of association exploitative, overreaching and fundamentally repulsive. "Thing one resembles thing two, thus because thing one was justified in the end, thing two is entirely justifiable for the same reasons and in the same ways. Don't forget that because I associate thing one and two if you disagree with thing two I will just pretend that you also disagree with thing one without evidence, and that makes you wrong."

MAIN POINT

If you want to discuss principles, the principle your detractors are arguing for is not "no consequence free speech", but just "free speech". If there were a large group of people in a town that ostracized someone for holding an opinion and threatened that person's lively-hood, then brushed it off by saying, "you can think or say whatever you want, but you won't get by with it" would be a type of "free speech", it just wouldn't be very useful or serve much civic purpose. Not protecting political speech can lead to mob-ocracy by preventing dissenting but valid opinions. Unfortunately for you, and something you don't understand, or don't want to is that not all dissenting opinions are popular or valid, but they still need protection from direct retaliation (economic, social, and physical) because the whole point of expressing opinions is not to be right or wrong, it is to point out that alternatives exist. You cannot have discussion without dissenting opinions or new information, and labeling things as good or bad to justify removing dissent, or information just turns whatever discussion into an echo-chamber.

**edit** To those who say "he was instrumental to Mozilla in the past, so why let it bother us now?" I ask: if you found out your co-worker Dexter was actually the Bay Harbor Butcher, would you say we should forgive him because we didn't care before? Of course not! We didn't know before. We're not omniscient. Somebody had to bring it to people's attention. With the blinding ignorance lifted, good folks proceeded to correct a mistake. **edit**

I found it funny at first that you would make a direct comparison donating to a political campaign to serial homicide. Then I realized you were being serious, have you ever heard of Poe's Law? You probably already addressed how pointing out it was a direct comparison was somehow an invalid point because you proclaim that it wasn't literal, but that doesn't prevent it from being a rhetorical device appealing to emotion, implicitly amping up the severity of this perceived injustice. Because your arguments come from a place of subjectivity (feelings, emotions, experience), it doesn't matter much if you make a non-literal comparison if you are reinforcing that emotional argument.

 

[chikusho]

This whole thing has become a farce. The minute someone expresses a different opinion are bullied into submission.

What, you mean like, say if someone expressed an opinion that people of the same gender should be allowed to love each other without sacrificing their opportunity to live function and thrive within society, right? And that they can do that, without without being considered excrement of society, getting bullied, abused, assaulted and lynched simply for existing?

Yeah, that's been a thing for ages. Thousands of years, in fact, and is still currently going on in many places in the world. The US included.

 

[SneakTeeth]

snip.

you have diluted the line between persons personal interest and his work politics. And while that isnt a witchhunt (what you later decribed is what a witchunt is, which some people did), you still arent in a position to feel somehow superior.
There were plenty of people accusing him of things he never done. in this very thread even. many such people were told they were factually incorrect. So yes, people did witchunt.

And if you read through this thread, plenty of people were going through as "all conservatives are gay haters" like conservatives were monolith. and while i agree on both sides that wording is unfortunate, detecting which exact individuals and thier identities did this is pretty much impossible for us. On the other hand OKCupid were the ones that named LBGT.

I disagree, the people in here are still not witch hunters unless they went out with campaigns prior to Eich stepping down and convinced people to stop using Firefox on the basis that he was what they all said he was. I still haven't seen any of this, so to me there's still no actual witch hunt. I will say that there was one if someone points me to hate mail campaigns or something similar to get Eich fired.

I saw the OkCupid post and that's not really what they did. They mentioned Eich's opinions and suggested a course of action, but did not say you had to take it and made it easy to use the site even if you disagreed with them. I'm not saying they're devoid in responsibility in Eich making his decision, but this lacks a monolith view from them or a witch hunting behavior I think.

We both agree that the monolith behavior is wrong, I think it's wrong to say all conservatives are homophobes too. I've met plenty of conservative people who have stood up for my rights again and again, and some of them were standing up for their own rights as they were both queer and conservative. I didn't address the monolith behavior on political sides because I'm far more use to seeing that and know people will just keep hearing and seeing what they want to on that. I should have addressed that regardless and that's my bad for not doing so.

Also, I did not dilute the line between the man's interest and work politics. I did not say I stopped using firefox because I believe it would help in anything in politics. I did not say he worked based off his politics and would run the company poorly for them. I only heard about his personal views, felt uncomfortable, and stopped using the browser he was behind because of it. As I said I would be perfectly fine with anyone treating me the same way, if someone doesn't want to associate with me because I'm queer or use anything related to me because of that that's fine and people are well within their right to do that.

I'm uncertain how any of this came off as me feeling superior to everyone else, care to explain? And to be clear I mean this in a neutral tone, I know sometimes over text tone doesn't carry well.

 

[RaikuFA]

I think I've got it figured out guys.

You're only defending his action because it's Firefox. If this was EA, Zynga or King you'd be saying "good riddance".

Though if this was an Imus 2.0 situation then I'd be siding with you guys cause he'd at least be trying to do damage control.

 

[shirkbot]

Though this story is being told and commented on mainly as an SJW story, it should be pointed out that a lot of pressure came from within Mozilla rather than without. For example, half of the board of Mozilla resigned after his promotion, and there's indications that several of the other employees weren't happy with the choice. Now, argue all you want about the SJW stuff (and I know we all will), but internal company politics is a whole different ball of wax. If your becoming the CEO is so internally divisive for a company that 3 out of 6 board members resign because you're promoted to be the CEO of it, then maybe you shouldn't be the CEO. Just sayin'.

I know I've pretty well missed the whole conversation at this point, but I think you've made the most logical post of everyone, so you get a repost. And a sincere Thank You.

OT: To address the general complaints as I see them:
You are free to express your beliefs, but that does not mean you will not suffer consequences for them. If I shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, even if I am delusional and sincerely believe there to be a fire, I will at the very least be escorted out of the theater.
There are bigger issues in the world, and we all deal with them in our own way, but they are not the topic at hand. More to the point, a small step in the right direction, or even a minuscule shuffle, is better than nothing. If society consistently makes it difficult for people that act against their fellow humans, be it directly through violence or indirectly through funding, to exist within society, then in the long run they will decrease in number. Or make their own society, with blackjack and hookers.

 

[WoodenPlanck]

Again, since when does boycotting a product make you a "thug"? Better tell all those "Religious" and other "family values" groups that boycotted -

JCPenny, for hiring Ellen Degeneres.
Kraft Foods, for having a pride day Oreo.
Home Depot, for supporting LGBT pride parades.
Archie Comics, for having a story where a gay war hero marries his African American boyfriend. They also boycotted Toys R US for selling said comic.

And many more.

Why aren't you all crying about how these businesses have been "bullied" by groups that have chosen to not buy their products?

So publicly traded companies openly represented a particular political stance and other people openly showed their displeasure with it. Seems legitimate, out in the open, and specific action at the companies based on company specific decisions.

What we have here though is a personal attack, at a CEO for holding a private political stance that he didn't enforce through his company, nor on his company, nor involve in the functioning of the company. Not only that it was initiated by another company as a smear tactic that may directly materially benefit other companies.

A bully is an entity that is punching down, and based on what I have seen here, a crowd versus an individual it really does seem like the crowd is punching down.

 

[Ratty]

So publicly traded companies openly represented a particular political stance and other people openly showed their displeasure with it. Seems legitimate, out in the open, and specific action at the companies based on company specific decisions.

Whether they're publicly traded or not makes little difference. People are as part of the free market allowed (as they should be) to boycott a product that associates itself with persons who have done things or expressed opinions they disagree with.

What we have here though is a personal attack, at a CEO for holding a private political stance that he didn't enforce through his company, nor on his company, nor involve in the functioning of the company. Not only that it was initiated by another company as a smear tactic that may directly materially benefit other companies.

You're making assumptions about why eHarmony brought it to public attention. And more importantly why people started to switch from Firefox.

A bully is an entity that is punching down, and based on what I have seen here, a crowd versus an individual it really does seem like the crowd is punching down.

I would say a bully is someone who donates money to try and make sure others are not treated equally under the law. Not people who then refuse to support a company that puts that individual in charge.

 

[forgo911]

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.

Not a lawyer, but hell no. What on earth would they sue them for? They stated some facts and their opinion about those facts, and they gave their users a clear option to continue using the site with Firefox if they chose. OkCupid's lawyers would eat up any law suit and spit it out.

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.

Not supporting a product is "unspeakable"? What about all of the Christian groups who boycotted Kraft foods after they dared to show support for Pride Day? How exactly should this CEO be able to sue OkCupid? For expressing an opinion? Then how come people don't sue each other for having different opinions all the time? Because we have freedom of speech in America, you can disagree with someone's speech, you can ignore it, but you can't take away their right to express their opinion. And you can choose not to buy or support a product for any reason you choose, including not liking someone who makes it.

This type of behavior is pretty standard for the gay activist crowd. If you don't 100% fall in line with them they will not hesitate to label you a bigot and seek to punish you in whatever way they can.

Citations needed. And specify "100% fall in line". Someone trying to prevent you from having equal rights under the law, and donating money to that effect, then refusing to apologize, is pretty good justification to dislike them and not support their endeavors.

A very large part of the gay rights movement is nothing more than bullying tactics used to control people through fear and intimidation.

Since when is voting with your wallet "controlling through fear and intimidation"?

Groups like the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement (GLAAD)

Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, there is quite a difference.
Defamation is vilifying people through false statements, ironically what you have just done by replacing the word with "Disagreement".

Here's the Merriam Webster definition
Defamation: the act of saying false things in order to make people have a bad opinion of someone or something : the act of defaming someone or something.

You know, like all of the false information spread about gays and the supposed detrimental effects of gay marriage all the time by hate groups and misinformed Churches.

is probably the most well known group of bullies in the gay activism movement. These people are some of the most repugnant and despicable hypocrites and thugs you will ever happen across and they do more harm for the rights of gays than anything.

Again, since when does boycotting a product make you a "thug"? Better tell all those "Religious" and other "family values" groups that boycotted -

JCPenny, for hiring Ellen Degeneres.
Kraft Foods, for having a pride day Oreo.
Home Depot, for supporting LGBT pride parades.
Archie Comics, for having a story where a gay war hero marries his African American boyfriend. They also boycotted Toys R US for selling said comic.

And many more.

Why aren't you all crying about how these businesses have been "bullied" by groups that have chosen to not buy their products?

Let me clear this right now. By using the information about a private donation to purposely harm another person, this is an attack on his character. This means that he can go after OkCupid for defamation of character. Wither it was intentional or not, this man lost his job due to their stance on HIS beliefs.

By the way, everyone stop and think. Do you really think that you are going to change anyone's mind on something? Everyone is a stubborn mule who refuses to even think about something from the other side. I mean, everyone here is going to keep arguing no matter what so I might as well go sit back and watch the fore works.

 

[Ratty]

Let me clear this right now. By using the information about a private donation to purposely harm another person, this is an attack on his character. This means that he can go after OkCupid for defamation of character. Wither it was intentional or not, this man lost his job due to their stance on HIS beliefs.

It's only defamation of character if the allegation is untrue, so no he doesn't have a legal case. Because he did make that donation. Presumably he lost his job because he failed to conform to company policy and make a public apology, but we're just speculating on that point.

By the way, everyone stop and think. Do you really think that you are going to change anyone's mind on something? Everyone is a stubborn mule who refuses to even think about something from the other side.

I listen to the other side but have never found any convincing arguments. I consider their point of view but as far as I can see their facts are wrong[footnote]The belief that marriage legally and historically are inseparable from their particular religious beliefs. Which is just plain wrong.[/footnote] and their assumptions are wrong.[footnote]The illogical belief that someone else being married somehow damages your own marriage.[/footnote] But I do listen and try to understand where they're coming from and why.

I mean, everyone here is going to keep arguing no matter what so I might as well go sit back and watch the fore works.

The one constant of existence is change, it's unfortunate when people keep their minds closed, but I don't think most people will. Otherwise humanity would never have advanced as far as we have, even if some people elect to live in the past. Like the Amish, who will still often seek out the benefits of modern medicine when it comes down to it.

 

[SneakTeeth]

snip

Let me clear this right now. By using the information about a private donation to purposely harm another person, this is an attack on his character. This means that he can go after OkCupid for defamation of character. Wither it was intentional or not, this man lost his job due to their stance on HIS beliefs.

By the way, everyone stop and think. Do you really think that you are going to change anyone's mind on something? Everyone is a stubborn mule who refuses to even think about something from the other side. I mean, everyone here is going to keep arguing no matter what so I might as well go sit back and watch the fore works.

Defamation has to be under false statements. I think what you're looking for is a lawsuit based on an invasion of privacy. I'm also not entirely sure that it is a case of privacy since I believe that large donations have to be put on public record, at least in the state of California.

I'm still not saying OkC is without some impact on this, it just isn't necessarily an illegal form of it.

Also, there isn't an LGBT movement that makes us into group which you seem to be implying. I and several other people are queer but we have not moved together as a force against Eich. Some people didn't care about Eich's opinions and kept using firefox, some people like me stopped using the browser but made no statements to the company that we thought they should change their CEO, and then some people probably did bring up that they'd use ff again if Eich were to step down. This is not an attempt to change your opinion on what happened to Eich being wrong or right. This is just a statement that there's really no group movement for you stand against if I did indeed understand what you typed.

 

[Ratty]

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?

I can't convince people like you who don't read things in context case and point
"So whenever people choose not to use a product because they don't like the people running it, it's murder" YES IT IS since you ignored the line "Horrible human beings who should be shamed if not shot and despoiled." that's just cherry picking comments and ignoring context so yea read again that's strait up saying its fine to murder people for donating 1k to a act you don't 8 years ago.

Except that you were ignoring or misunderstanding the context of the original comment to falsely accuse NortherWolf of advocating murder.

He was talking about all of the attacks on the people who dared switch their browser in this thread. Who some here have decided to call "Social Justice Warriors" which is somehow supposed to be an insult. The "Horrible human beings who should be shamed if not shot and despoiled." was a reference to all of the attacks on LGBTs and allies who boycotted Firefox that have happened in this thread. Not talking about Eich.

 

[A-D.]

Oh, I'm sorry. Did we infringe upon his right to free speech because we chose to exercise ours? It's not a one-way street, boyo.

He CAN say all the bigoted, nasty, racist or homophobic or mysoginistic things he wants. And we CAN choose to simply ignore him. But guess what, we can also say anything WE want, like, say, that we don't like that he was made CEO of a company. And guess what, we can also choose to, perhaps, stop using a product his company produces, making it less profitable and making the company re-think their choice to elect him.

We didn't hold a fucking gun to his head. We didn't enact a law saying that if he says that he has to be fired. We voted with our wallets, and it worked. For once it actually worked. But who am I kidding, you don't care. All you see is the big bad liberals using their rights to make something happen that YOU don't like. It doesn't matter that those rights are exactly the same as yours. Because you don't agree with what they are saying, you want them to just shut the fuck up. Isn't that right? Last time I looked, the liberals aren't passing laws saying that straight people can't get married, or that gay people have the legal right to discriminate against Christians.

You sir, are a bigot. Don't hide behind psudeo-free-speech to cry foul when people call you on it.

Manual quoting for the win. No you didnt, but you didnt leave it at free speech. You essentially held a gun to his head, either he resigns, or the company suffers, a company full of people who may or may not agree with the one person who just happens to be at the top currently, the same guy who has been at that company for 9 Years and made a silly donation 6 years ago.

What was that about OKCupid again? Please stop using Firefox because the CEO, one guy out of MANY PEOPLE who supported Prop-8 is the CEO there. Thats basicly DOXing, or is there a list somewhere where i can look up publicly who voted for Prop8 or gave donations towards the same cause? No, its one guy being singled out because he happens to be the CEO at a company that makes a popular browser. He exercised his rights to support what he feels he wants to support. Sure People can also not support him, but its not about him, its about Mozilla, he is the CEO, so what? He is one guy at the company, one guy out of how many? Yet its perfectly fine to DESTROY the reputation of an entire company, even ruin it financially because the one dude working there thinks that Gays can have civil unions and not church marriages?

You are hiding behind some pseudo-nonsense that is actually hard to grasp because..i dont wanna be rude, but that shit isnt even remotely logical. But yeah i want those people i named to shut up, i dont wanna hear about "Women need more rights without obligations"-Feminists, or "Kill all men"-Feminists. I dont want to hear about stupid vacuous tumblr keyboard warriors. I dont want to hear from people who turn EVERYTHING into a "Us versus Them" thing and if you so much as disagree with them on a single thing, they try to ruin your life forever. Look up what Scientology did with "Suppressive Persons", this applies to quite alot of Feminists, especially those on freethoughtblogs and atheism plus.

But sure, it makes me a bigot when i object to one party discriminating against another. It doesnt matter whether your cause is good or not, if you use the same bullshit tactics then you arent good, you arent better. You are just as vile, evil and reprehensible as the ones you claim to oppose.

Also, for future reference, false equivalency fallacy right there.

Do you know what the problem is? You're approaching this from the assumption that both sides are equal. Eich was the head of a massive company, has money to spare, and is in the majority privileged. The other side have to suffer through discrimination every day of their lives. But if they even try to fight back, they get beaten down hard.

Reminds me of school bullies, you know the ones that torment the kids who can't stand up for themselves? When the little kids finally DO, they cry foul and get them in trouble. Because they only fight when they know they have absolute power. Maybe Eich isn't homophobic, maybe all he cares about is "traditional" marriage (itself a fallacy, since "traditional" has been re-negotiated multiple times). If he doesn't get what he wants, what exactly does he lose? He gets to gnash his teeth and cry about how America is dead, or whatever. It doesn't affect him in any signifigant way. Not a jot.

While the gays, if THEY lose, get to be treated like social pariahs, told they are second-class citizens, essentially punished for being themselves. They have a lot more to gain in this fight, and a LOT more to lose.

And, I have to add AGAIN (because people don't seem to get it), a boycott is not holding a gun to a company's head. If they choose to ignore it, it's a wager whether they'll lose or win in the long run. There have been plenty of boycotts that go nowhere. Heck, Bill Donahue just told his Catholic League to boycott Guinness for choosing to support the 'gay agenda'. Does that mean he's discriminating against gays? Of course not.

Privilege, you keep using that word, i dont think it means what you think it means. In fact i think that word has been abused so much nobody knows what it meant anymore. What makes him different to whoever "protested" Mozilla? He briefly was the boss. That is all, that is no privilege, or are you suggesting that the rich can be beaten on because they are rich? Yeah no, i dont believe it. In fact people like these "social justice warriors" behave more like bullies than some rich fuck who maybe donated 1000 Dollars to a cause he supported, you know like how people support Greenpeace so they can sit on a fucking road and block a convoy of nuclear waste.

No, SJW's are bullies, the whole lot of them. For one they always gang up on a single victim, they dont ever stop mistreating and hounding their target until they are so broken and damaged that they can smugly pat themselves on the back for a job well done. And no the Gays dont lose anything with this "fight". In a majority christian nation they already were ostracized for being gay, it doesnt fucking change anything if the law allows it if enough people are still bigots anyway. Right now, every restaurant can refuse service to anyone they want, black people, gays, KKK members..its their decision, but they can. You have no fucking idea what "oppression" actually is, you see this through your first world lense and behave as if its the most horrible thing in the world, i advise you, if you want to fight for something, check third world countries, the middle east, or anywhere that ISNT the US. Because i garantuee you, your little "problem" pales in comparison.

What was that about OKCupid again? Please stop using Firefox because the CEO, one guy out of MANY PEOPLE who supported Prop-8 is the CEO there. Thats basicly DOXing, or is there a list somewhere where i can look up publicly who voted for Prop8 or gave donations towards the same cause? No, its one guy being singled out because he happens to be the CEO at a company that makes a popular browser. He exercised his rights to support what he feels he wants to support. Sure People can also not support him, but its not about him, its about Mozilla, he is the CEO, so what? He is one guy at the company, one guy out of how many? Yet its perfectly fine to DESTROY the reputation of an entire company, even ruin it financially because the one dude working there thinks that Gays can have civil unions and not church marriages?

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.

In which case, why not go after other people? Nope, only after the one dude who just happened to be made CEO recently. Thats the epitome of being vindictive. Which basicly proves the point, if people actually think that ruining someones personal life and reputation is not as bad as hanging a black guy, you need to get your priorities straight. Because from where im standing, at least the KKK had the decency to actually end your life, not ruin it and then let you live with that reputation for the rest of your life.

So ya know, pot meet kettle and all that. Prop-8 People are dumb, SJW's who think forcing a guy out of a job is fair are equally vile and evil.

Murdering someone and briefly hurting the reputation of a millionaire who represents a whole company are two different things. I can guarantee you his life is not ruined, nor his reputation. He is an amazing programmer and I'm sure someone will hire him, just not as the face or leader of a company. Or he could just retire and roll around in his piles of cash all day and not care what you think about him.

Raping someone is not as bad as Murder, because the victim might eventually get over it. Logic, you dont have it. There is no difference, both actions are vile and evil. And yes his reputation is ruined because these people? These Social Justice fuckwits? They wont stop, they will continue until they have removed him from society. Because that is how these people work. Whether you have money or not doesnt change anything, it doesnt matter if you go after the next homeless guy or a CEO, its equally as evil in both cases and no one deserves this. But sure, lets have your optimism. I predict this man will get hate-mail, death threats and more for the next 10 years while everyone will make sure to tell whoever will listen that he made one single mistake 6 years ago.

They dont stop. They will continue. Social Justice Warriors are basicly a hate group at this point and i despise them all for it.

 

[EiMitch]

What's this? Somebody has something new to say? Okay, I'm curious enough to bite. I was ready to hang-up on this topic. But since you're apparently just joining us, I'll make an exception just for you.

Based on how I've seen you posting EiMitch I would have been thrilled if you had actually been going "head on" with your detractors, instead of immediately dismissing the difficult arguments pointing to your flaws in reasoning, inventing definitions based on your personal bias

I'll remember you said that.

At least I can hand it to you that you make yourself clear in your projection onto your opposition, which makes understanding where you are coming from easy though rather frustrating, as you pointed out yourself.

Accusing me of projection, huh? Okay, based on what?

Perhaps I can point out the flaw in your conclusion using your own style, I hope that it will make more sense to you that way. Ugh! I'm tired of people using this false dichotomy trope! Anyone who says that this issue is black and white is either trying to create controversy, or is in the close-minded-closet grasping at straws to avoid admitting that there might be any validity in any other position.

Since you missed it, I was complaining, quite clearly, about the reverse-victim trope. I didn't say the situation wasn't complicated. I said its absurd to paint Eich as a victim and the protestors as villains. So what were you just saying about projection?

Just because someone calls something "memes" and "tropes" doesn't invalidate those arguments,

Well its a good thing I didn't leave it at that.

Except the man in question wasn't "shamed", the company he represented was targeted, his lively-hood was targeted, as was the lively-hood (unjustly so) of those who were in Mozilla, some of whom are probably supporters of gay marriage.

To accuse me of never addressing this means one of two things. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll just assume its this one: you didn't read the rest of this thread. You address my first post alone, without referencing anything else I've said after that. You're late to the party, I fully understand. Now that you're here, please catch-up on your reading.

You're basically arguing that Eich's past political activities should exist in a vacuum separate from how he ran Mozilla. As I said elsewhere in the thread: I don't agree, but I get it. The idea is fair enough. Its the part where Eich is labeled a victim/martyr while shaming the protestors that bothers me.

What were you saying about projection, how everything isn't black and white, and not "admitting that there might be any validity in any other position"?

Ahh the "all oppression is equal" trope. I personally find that kind of association exploitative, overreaching and fundamentally repulsive. "Thing one resembles thing two, thus because thing one was justified in the end, thing two is entirely justifiable for the same reasons and in the same ways. Don't forget that because I associate thing one and two if you disagree with thing two I will just pretend that you also disagree with thing one without evidence, and that makes you wrong."

Nevermind that last part is a strawman. You've raised a bigger concern. Are you saying that discrimination against POC is a big deal, but discriminating against LGBTs isn't? That there is something inherently different about discriminating against the later that calls for people to be more forgiving?

Also, what were you just saying about labeling arguments as "tropes" and "using sarcasm" and "projection"? Is this just another demonstration or something?

If you want to discuss principles, the principle your detractors are arguing for is not "no consequence free speech", but just "free speech". If there were a large group of people in a town that ostracized someone for holding an opinion and threatened that person's lively-hood, then brushed it off by saying, "you can think or say whatever you want, but you won't get by with it" would be a type of "free speech", it just wouldn't be very useful or serve much civic purpose.

...

Just when I thought you'd have something original to say, you let me down. For all your bemoaning of context and nuance and how everything is not black and white, you ignored the following two pieces of context: (my main point)

1- Eich didn't just express an opinion. He contributed to the passage of a law that denied LGBTs the right to marry.

2 - The "retaliation" protestors were expressing their own opinions by switching from one browser to another.

To argue that the later is a suppression of one's right while the former is not. That the later is somehow going beyond freedom of speech/choice and oppressing someone else's rights while the former is not. That is the reverse-victim crap I was talking about. Its not only a double-standard, its an outright inversion of the concepts "expression, rights, and freedom."

Like I said, catch-up with the rest of the thread.

I found it funny at first that you would make a direct comparison donating to a political campaign to serial homicide. Then I realized you were being serious, have you ever heard of Poe's Law? You probably already addressed how pointing out it was a direct comparison was somehow an invalid point because you proclaim that it wasn't literal,

No, its invalid because the point I was making is that its stupid for others to argue "if you didn't know before and didn't do anything about it prior to now, that means you didn't care." A crucial piece of context which you missed while crowing about Poe's law.

Unless you intend to address my main point as stated above, hopefully with something original to say (hint, hint), I think we're done here.

 

[anthony87]

I think I've got it figured out guys.

You're only defending his action because it's Firefox. If this was EA, Zynga or King you'd be saying "good riddance".

Load of bollox.

I haven't used Firefox in four years but I still think that this is a load of petty bullshit.

 

[weirdee]

"Eich only announced he was stepping down after it was revealed late Wednesday that he'd given money to Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign in 1992, and later to Ron Paul's campaign," wrote Signorile. "Suddenly, in addition to defending a CEO who gave money to homophobic efforts, Mozilla would have to defend a CEO who supported Buchanan, a far right extremist and isolationist who's been accused of racist and anti-Semitic attacks, and who also was, rightly, driven off MSNBC."

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[forgo911]

snip

Let me clear this right now. By using the information about a private donation to purposely harm another person, this is an attack on his character. This means that he can go after OkCupid for defamation of character. Wither it was intentional or not, this man lost his job due to their stance on HIS beliefs.

By the way, everyone stop and think. Do you really think that you are going to change anyone's mind on something? Everyone is a stubborn mule who refuses to even think about something from the other side. I mean, everyone here is going to keep arguing no matter what so I might as well go sit back and watch the fore works.

Defamation has to be under false statements. I think what you're looking for is a lawsuit based on an invasion of privacy. I'm also not entirely sure that it is a case of privacy since I believe that large donations have to be put on public record, at least in the state of California.

I'm still not saying OkC is without some impact on this, it just isn't necessarily an illegal form of it.

Also, there isn't an LGBT movement that makes us into group which you seem to be implying. I and several other people are queer but we have not moved together as a force against Eich. Some people didn't care about Eich's opinions and kept using firefox, some people like me stopped using the browser but made no statements to the company that we thought they should change their CEO, and then some people probably did bring up that they'd use ff again if Eich were to step down. This is not an attempt to change your opinion on what happened to Eich being wrong or right. This is just a statement that there's really no group movement for you stand against if I did indeed understand what you typed.

Thank-you for clearing that up. While I do know a bit about law, it is mostly about landlord and tenet law.

Truth be told, I am of the opinion to just give those that are LGBT the right to marry. It's not because I have a strong opinion about the sitution, It's just I don't care. As I see it, there are much more important things to worry about than if people who are porking each other want to tell others that they are married. Why should I care what others do in their life? If they want to be married and then have to go through the divorce process like everyone else if their relationship fails, let them.

There reason I have such an issue with this is the fact that what OkCupid did cost a man his job. It was their actions alone that cost that man his job. The CEO did nothing to warrant a reaction that severe.