Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[LostCrusader]

I think its really weird that the people at OkCupid cared that much about a $1000 donation to protest about it, and even more amazed that Firefox or their CEO cared enough to do anything about it.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

Well done internet *slow clap* you really pulled together to achieve something utterly meaningless and actually helped give credence to the idea that people who don't fall in line with LGBT beliefs are actively hounded and discriminated against, a fallacy long peddled by those who are actually more damaging to that cause.

It isn't meaningless to show that funding anti-LGBT laws will be frowned upon and even economically punished.

It isn't meaningless to show that funding pro-LGBT laws will be frowned upon and even economically punished.

Oh wait, yes it is. And so is your example. Argue all you want, but when someone makes a private donation to something THEY believe, they are allowed to have their job, money and source of income removed along with a torrent of hate for doing so?

What would happen if say... Bill Gates funded a program just to use science to point out and poke holes in religion and the bible, leading to the removal of church benefits and so on. (Note: have no clue if he is atheist or religous etc., he was just the first person in mind). Those are anti-religious beliefs, yet should he be thrown from his position because of them? It is not the company doing so, but Bill himself, so why should his job and such be threatened.

If you have ever played or seen Bioshock Infinite, I'd like to bring up Daisy Fitsroy. Before they went back on it in Burial at Sea Part 2, she was a big leader of a rebellion against crazy bible thumping upper classers. However, when, at one point, the main character Booker ends up in a situation where he sacrificed himself for the rebellion (there by becoming a massive martyr and a symbol for the rebellion) and returned to her, alive, she says that he simply complicates the story of Booker and opts to kill him instead of, you know, saying hi.

Basically, even though the rebellion is a good thing, she is so far into it that she opts to murder someone instead of complicating the rebellions symbol. If we say the Rebellion is Left and the Uppers are Right, she is the perfect example of too far. She went FAR too far to the left, and as such even though she was doing it for a good cause, she was doing a bad thing.

That is literally what has happened here. The man made a private donation 6 years ago of a tiny amount to something he personally believed in, and people found it, exposed it to the internet (and no doubt Tumblr) and had a field day with it. Disagree with him as you may, but do not ruin his career, which has nothing to do with it. I don't see any reason why someone couldn't fund a program to convince the world to outlaw hetrosexual marriage, so why can't he? I know, it's fucking horrible, but that's why it failed. If there was actually enough support for it, then it would have happened. That's kind of the way this world works, you know, voting?

So instead of trying to mob him and ruin his career, oppose the program itself and then you will actually achieve something? But there's no point now, because it was SIX YEARS ago and the program has already failed, leaving the internet to simply hack at what remains.

 

[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.

I don't think so. If he apologized and then they still demanded he get out then I'd say its stupidt

You mean an apology like this taken from a recent interview?

What message do you want to send to those who are asking for your resignation or for you to recant your earlier opposition to gay marriage?
Eich: Two things. One is -- without getting into my personal beliefs, which I separate from my Mozilla work -- when people learned of the donation, they felt pain. I saw that in friends' eyes, [friends] who are LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered]. I saw that in 2012. I am sorry for causing that pain.

Or how about this?

A number of Mozillians, including LGBT individuals and allies, have stepped forward to offer guidance and assistance in this. I cannot thank you enough, and I ask for your ongoing help to make Mozilla a place of equality and welcome for all. Here are my commitments, and here's what you can expect:

-Active commitment to equality in everything we do, from employment to events to community-building.
-Working with LGBT communities and allies, to listen and learn what does and doesn't make Mozilla supportive and welcoming.
-My ongoing commitment to our Community Participation Guidelines, our inclusive health benefits, our anti-discrimination policies, and the spirit that underlies all of these.
-My personal commitment to work on new initiatives to reach out to those who feel excluded or who have been marginalized in ways that makes their contributing to Mozilla and to open source difficult. More on this last item below.

I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to "show, not tell"; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.

Man...what an asshole eh?

(Many thanks to ThatDarnCoyote for providing this info)

 

[IceForce]

Are the rest of us all bigots because we don't want convicted criminals to have the same rights as us?

Comparing convicted criminals to gays?
Such logic. Wow.

This thread is a cesspool of bigotry.

I don't remember doing any such thing.

Please point out where I did this. Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

[Ratty]

Except that the rights of the minority should not be up for a majority vote.

Ehhh, I see where you're coming from, I think, but how else are they going to be implemented? Also note that those rights are up for a "majority vote" every time we elect our next set of legislators anyway...

But seriously, if not through the democratic process, how else?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it - The United States Declaration of Independence.


You can't say "We're all equal... except for that group right over there, and that group. Oh and that one. Otherwise we're totally equal."[footnote]Or as George Orwell put it at the end of Animal Farm "All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others."[/footnote] we've been slowly working towards truer equality throughout US history. It's been a very rocky road with lots of ups and downs, but we're getting there.

We've had the abolition of slavery, then securing women's rights, racial minority rights and now gay rights. This is achieved partly through governmental regulation to ensure that all people are treated equally under the law, and easing prejudices in subsequent generations thereafter. A lot of the things that appall us, like racial segregation, were "just the way things are" for entire generations of the majority which grew up with them, until some people stood up and changed the laws and the culture to be truer to the American ideals of equality and liberty.

Prison inmates.

Prison inmates don't deserve the same rights as you or I, because by definition, they've lost their right to be free to walk the streets.

Are the rest of us all bigots because we don't want convicted criminals to have the same rights as us?

Yes, but (at least in theory) prison inmates can be anyone. It's not, or shouldn't be, tied to choices you make that don't hurt anyone. To your personal beliefs or genetic make up, but rather dependent upon what you do/did as an individual that hurt people. It's still bullshit that felons lose the right to vote though.

SNIP

You still never answered my question of whether you would think it was petty to hold his contribution against him if he had been trying to take away your right to marry.

Sincere question: does this change your view of him at all?

Yes, I am very sorry he did not issue more statements like this so everyone could see them rather than resigning. I'm a believer in forgiveness when possible, because life is too short to hold on to hatred. And everyone makes mistakes.
I am glad he was able to see the pain he had caused and tried to apologize, I'm just sorry he gave up rather than try again when this came to national attention. In that way he not only let himself be hurt, but for the movement towards equality to be hurt as well. It is a shame.

 

[Darmani]

Alright, good to see public shaming can encourage discriminatory hiring practices in the work place. I guess now Eich has to dissolve into the ether since groups like OKcupid would have him die penniless in a ditch for his personal beliefs.

Yay, fight to end discrimination by encouraging discrimination.

I think a wealthy, lettered, white man leaving under a cloud of political compromise as to actual misconduct or failure isn't going to die penniless. I'm not sure how to feel about this BUT he did publically support a campaign against gay rights and equality.. .and lost. Part of the fallout from that is the VALID boycotting of his products to force societal recognition of the values people want promoted.

Same as when OSC was ragged for being a writer on Superman. OR Mel Gibson lost support for his anti-semitism.

Or do you think there is some debate to be had for the public acknowledgement or endorsement of homosexual men and women's fair treatment under law and in general by society. Protest IS legal and laudable means of social change. certainly versus the alternatives. We can't villainize the participants for engaging in the process.

 

[Carnagath]

In fact, probably about every major western company has a public policy that conflict the political views of [...] communists[...]

Oh dear God, this thread is absolutely hilarious On topic, I think that this was brilliant promotion on behalf of OKCupid, it brought them a pretty good amount of brand recognition for no cost. LGBT couch activists jumped on it because they want to do something, just not something too hard or inconvenient. The CEO caved and I find that natural, when you are hurting your company you tend to lose support pretty fast.

 

[anthony87]

snip

"Still"? I don't think I've ever spoken to you before, unless I missed a quote somewhere along the way.

Anyways, yeah. Considering the pittance of the donation, how long ago it was and the fact that he apologised I'd think the whole thing is incredibly petty even if it was my right to marry that was being taken away.

But hey, that's just me. I'm a "bigger fish" kinda guy.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I just want to point out to all the people who say "Well, he could have just reached out with words to the LGBT community"...that wouldn't have done any good, most likely. People would probably just reject the apology, saying "Well, of course he'd say that. He's just covering his own ass. He doesn't really mean it," and continue with the boycott.

Am I saying that he took the right method in resigning without at least trying to apologize? Hell, no. You should always do lesser damage control before you go for the "burning bridges" method. But don't act like an apology would automatically ensure his problems would stop.

 

[Signa]

Well done internet *slow clap* you really pulled together to achieve something utterly meaningless and actually helped give credence to the idea that people who don't fall in line with LGBT beliefs are actively hounded and discriminated against, a fallacy long peddled by those who are actually more damaging to that cause.

It's just so petty. Such a groundswell of anger and blatant self promotion from some sites for what? You got a man fired by throwing a little shit-fit. Good work, you changed the world. I'm sure they will make an inspirational movie about the time the bloggoshpere of Social Justice Warriors assembled and rid a medium sized tech firm of a man who once made a donation. Brendan Eich isn't exactly stood outside of an Elton John show with a "God hates fags" sign, he's not an evangelical missionary trying to get Gay people put to death in Africa

You want to get some deserved righteous anger going? Go and watch "God loves Uganda" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3_hKv4pEM4], go and protest Saudi Arabia or Russia. Go and do anything that takes an ounce of balls you safe, petty little Social Justice warrior circle-jerk.

Exactly. Remind me again how this wasn't cyberbullying? You know, that other thing that people like to feel good to rally against? I'm not a fan of this guy, but he's just as entitled to his opinions as much as you and I. I'm also certain that none of this has made him feel better about the LGBT community.

 

[anthony87]

Man...what an asshole eh?

Well sure the apology was nice and all but I think they were all in an uproar over some of his previous comments years before where he said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." and another quote where he went on to say "I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture." . . . . . . .


Hold on. What's that? Oh, Brendan Eich didn't say those things? Really? Well we better get to finding out who did so we can drive that bigoted asshole from his job next. Sharpen up those pitchforks fellas! We are going to find out who the gay hating bigot was who said those things and we are going to make sure that sick bastard never works again!

I'll bite....who said that?

 

[Vegosiux]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it - The United States Declaration of Independence.


You can't say "We're all equal... except for that group right over there, and that group. Oh and that one. Otherwise we're totally equal."[footnote]Or as George Orwell put it at the end of Animal Farm "All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others."[/footnote] we've been slowly working towards truer equality throughout US history. It's been a very rocky road with lots of ups and downs, but we're getting there.

We've had the abolition of slavery, then securing women's rights, racial minority rights and now gay rights. This is achieved partly through governmental regulation to ensure that all people are treated equally under the law, and easing prejudices in subsequent generations thereafter. A lot of the things that appall us, like racial segregation, were "just the way things are" for entire generations of the majority which grew up with them, until some people stood up and changed the laws and the culture to be truer to the American ideals of equality and liberty.

I get that. What I mean is that all of that came through because it eventually passed a kind of a "majority vote", because the social consensus shifted so that the majority of people accepted all those things. Not because it was forced one-sidedly on them.

And let me just say that if we take the most literal meaning of "majority vote", a referendum, yes, there are so many tricks with that it makes your head explode. A few years ago we had a referendum on something where you had to vote against if you supported what the referendum was about, because the question was phrased that way.

 

[hazydawn]

I don't remember doing any such thing.

Please point out where I did this. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Someone was asking for an example of a group of people who don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us.
You give the example of convicted criminals.
And then you ask that question: "Are the rest of us all bigots because we don't want convicted criminals to have the same rights as us?"
You don't see how I could come to this conclusion? Especially giving the context of this discussion? Your phrasing is very odd and implies it to me. But, very well. If I interpreted too much into your comment and all you wanted to point out was that there is one such group, namely convicted criminals, then I was wrong. Just answer this question. Do you think that gays should have any less rights than the rest of us (including marriage)? If your answer is "no", then you have my apology.

 

[Vegosiux]

Someone was asking for an example of a group of people who don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us.
You give the example of convicted criminals.
And then you ask that question: "Are the rest of us all bigots because we don't want convicted criminals to have the same rights as us?"
You don't see how I could come to this conclusion? Especially giving the context of this discussion? Your phrasing is very odd and implies it to me. But, very well. If I interpreted too much into your comment and all you wanted to point out was that there is one such group, namely convicted criminals, then I was wrong. Just answer this question. Do you think that gays should have any less rights than the rest of us (including marriage)? If your answer is "no", then you have my apology.

No, actually I have to hand it to IceForce on this one, and I think I better drop in since I started that entire line of conversation in the first place.

The argument I, and later, IceForce, responded to was "If you believe some people shouldn't have the same rights as you, then you're a bigot". Then I pointed out that with a certain value of "some people" that's true for everyone, and everyone can find a certain value of "some" they'd think those people shouldn't have the same rights. Then I actually went ahead to make a neatly more specific statement that maybe didn't look so "morally superior", but sure as hell is a lot more practical to apply. Really, just look back through the thread, everything should be on the previous page.

Going on; then Trilligan responded, that they see no such "some people". At which point IceForce dropped in, that "convicted criminals" are "some people" that forfeited some of the rights the rest of us enjoy.

Now; unless you agree that "convicted criminals" are "some people", I'm going to tell you to go look at a dictionary. That was my entire point. The argument of "If you believe some people shouldn't have the same rights as you, then you're a bigot" is so vague it's utterly meaningless, because you can pick any set of people and they will qualify as "some people".

Your post looks to me as if you missed that first part.

 

[Vegosiux]

Thing is, he did apologize, dated 1 April:

[blockquote]What message do you want to send to those who are asking for your resignation or for you to recant your earlier opposition to gay marriage?
Eich: Two things. One is -- without getting into my personal beliefs, which I separate from my Mozilla work -- when people learned of the donation, they felt pain. I saw that in friends' eyes, [friends] who are LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered]. I saw that in 2012. I am sorry for causing that pain.[/blockquote]

"Oh, but nobody ever does anything serious on 1st April, he's just messing with us, cause he's scum!"

Seriously, calling it. Likely it already happened on Tumblr somewhere.

 

[Something Amyss]

Of course, this is all just the silly blue-sky thinking of an armchair libertarian.

You're a libertarian and have no opinion on whether civil liberties should be up fr popular vote?

That baffles me slightly. Aren't libertarians supposed to be about personal freedom? Armchair or otherwise?

Should or shouldn't doesn't matter

It does when we're in the realm of people speaking about what should or shouldn't be done. That was where you came in, by the way, so you're completely ignoring the context of my question to offer up a statement of its irrelevance. And I guess that's fine, but you're not addressing things on the same plane as I was, which makes it pointless.