Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[Strazdas]

You've yet to explain why, if I think your opinion is bad, I am still entitled to buy a product from you rather than get it from someone else.

Eich is a bigot, and I see no reason anyone who thinks so should be prevented from using a web browser from a company whose CEO doesn't hold the opinions of a total dickbag.

Not sure if my language skills are incapable or you used a wrong word in first sentence. you are "entitled" to buy a product from whoever you want. that does not mean demanding financial ruin of somone you disagree with is the same thing.
Eich is not a bigot. there is no facts proving that. in fact his statements seems to show the opposite. or do you have some sort of proof that wasnt show in 10 pages of this post yet?

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement (GLAAD)

Why do you keep doing this?
You've been corrected multiple times now.

Why do you insist on being wilfully ignorant about the correct name of this group?

just a guess here, but probably same reason i call twitter "twatter" and facebook "fartbook", intentional jab at the company.


Well then I'll simply ask of you what you're asking of others: Links or other convincing evidence. Our friend may or may not be correct but at this point it's strictly your yarn against theirs and I like theirs better. Fair?[/quote]
Raiku has been posting stuff like this multiple times on this thread and continues to either not read or ignore what he read and make assumtions.

there were plenty of links here in this thread.
how about this link
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/28/three-mozilla-board-members-resign-over-choice-of-new-ceo/
"The three board members who resigned sought a CEO from outside Mozilla with experience in the mobile industry who could help expand the organization?s Firefox OS mobile-operating system and balance the skills of co-founders Eich and Baker, the people familiar with the situation said."

This happened BEFORE OKCupid started its campaign.

snip, emploees, snip

Fair enough, you have a point here.

I think this is what it boils down to - your belief that people fought for decades to not be persecuted for their opinions. This hasn't happened. People have fought for decades for equal treatment, true, but there's been no civil rights movement for "opinions" - freedom of opinion has been enshrined in US law and constitution since the US existed.

so you meant to say that i imagined the fight against being fired just for saying you support gays? i guess i made up whole human history then!

yeah, persecution for oppinion happened a lot, regardless what the law said, and homosexuals fought to stop that, and now they are doing exactly the same to opinions they dont like.

So I am clear here.

you make a good point but unnecessary one. This is because we are disliking OKCupid, as a company, for something a company took a stance on as a company and not as the employees working there. Meanwhile they are attacking Mozilla, as a company for something one employee did in his private life for his private money. this is like attacking Bank of America because one cashier tells racist jokes to his private friends.

How do I know? Because I just checked the page source and pretty much the entire website hangs on the user using Javascript. The only site I know of that doesn't use Javascript is Craiglist, and if you looked at that site you'd see a prime example of how basic a site is when you don't use it. And how am I advocating, shouldn't people boycotting Firefox also boycott the script that Eich invented and is most likely still profiting on? You shouldn't pick and choose when boycotting, especially when you're so mad that you block your Javascript-run website to Firefox users.

i dont and neither do you.

whether or not people boycotting firefox should block it is irrelevant here. the point is this websites rules forbid you for advocating any software that blocks any part of it because advertisement.

 

[wulf3n]

So it's okay to fire someone for breaking the law (an action)? And is it the illegal act that's okay to discriminate against or being convicted, because it's very easy for someone to be acquitted even if they committed the crime. If the child molester molested my child, is it okay for me to discriminate against them once they've been let out of prison? How about my child, can they discriminate against them without it being some moral evil to you?

Isn't that the whole point of the prison system? I mean why bother letting them out if you're just going to treat them like criminals for the rest of their lives. You may as well take them behind the shed and shoot them, it would be quicker and less painful.

But, if you'd like a less illegal example: you'd fire someone who, as soon as work was done, ran around trying their hardest to discourage people from using the company's service/product. You'd also fire someone who screamed in everyone's faces.

I would argue that would indicate they are unable to adequately perform their job. Though I understand what you're trying to say. Essentially you're saying firing someone because their behaviour either makes you uncomfortable or because their presence affects the possibility of sales due to the opinions of the consumer.

To which I reply if I consider it wrong to do so because of a persons religion/ethnicity/sexual preference then I would also consider it wrong for the current circumstance.

Well, first off because "intolerance of intolerance" as some kind of moral wrong is one of the stupidest things the internet ever vomited forth.

Why? Just because you don't like the person that doesn't make it ok to be intolerant. Now that's not saying you have to accept their point of view, but if a person wants to consider them self "enlightened" for lack of better word, they have to tolerate it. Alternatively people can drop the charade and accept their more akin to those they despise than they try to convince themselves and others.

Also because he is being treated equally; had anyone else acted against their company and caused a bunch of negative PR do you think they'd be kept on?

If the Negative PR was caused by a prejudiced few trying to push their vindictive agenda then yes I think they'd be kept on.

Treating everyone equally is not the same as never firing anyone.

I never said it was. This about the why, not the act itself.

Do you treat everyone you know equally, regardless of what they've done? If you say yes, I'm just going to call bullshit and never believe you, but if you actually do, I guess that's good, I just hope you never have to make actual decisions in your life.

What's more worrying is the implication that you don't treat everyone equally. That there are people out there who you consider to be inferior, of less worth, and that ultimately deserve less rights.

This isn't about liking everyone, this isn't about agreeing with them, this is about affording them the same basic human rights and privileges you would like to be afforded yourself. Because if you're not willing to give another the right to an opinion, how can you expect them to give you the same.

 

[Strazdas]

So do you also demonize every last single boycott and protest of corporations ever? If not, then you're just rationalizing a double-standard. There are always innocent employees caught in every protest against a company. For the sake of logical consistency, you'd have to condemn the very idea of mass protest at its root. That's what you're ultimately demonizing.

there is a difference between protesting a company for company policies and protesting a company because of one employees personal belief.
also this is your 3rd post after quitting and you still havent gotten back to me on the discussion you started 2 days ago that you seemingly ended by calling me a bigot.

So by phrasing it like that, are you hoping that I would reply with something like ''Yes because it's unnatural'' or do you want me to respond with statistics such as the rates of HIV infection in first world countries being highest in homosexual communities? I could also bring up Germany's march for zoophile rights from 2013 who are trying to claim the exact same equal rights because they believe animal-human relationships can be loving and consensual. There's also the case with the vancouver pride parade where marching around naked in a ''Family friendly'' event is meant to be a sign of pride instead of just being disgusting and inappropriate for children.

if thats your attempt to appeal to something some people dont like and pretend it extend to everyone then you have failed.
Beside the HIV rate statistics you have no leg to stnad on here. there is nothing wrong with people expressing their opinions in those examples.
saying its "disgusting and inappropriate" only strengtens our point that you just want to hunt people that you dont like.

Well, as I say, there's a difference between disliking someone for their opinions and disliking them for who they are (and as I said, I think religion is on an uncomfortable borderline between the two). Having said that, frankly, I can choose where I shop for whatever reason I like, however bigoted - and you can choose to like or dislike me accordingly too! What else do we have to go on?

can you define a person by "who he is"? because as far as i know a person is a sum of his actions and opinions. while not in ever case, most times opinions and actions match each-other.

I don't care about your definitions, I care about meanings. And in this regard, whether you want to call them both discrimination or not, they simply aren't the same thing - and that is exactly what I said, and all that I said.

I mean, you can't honestly believe that hating someone because of his ethnicity/religion/gender/sexual orientation/etc is morally equivalent to the desire of these persons not to be hated, disadvantaged, or worse, nor is acting on these respective beliefs.

they are. discrimination is still discrimination, even if that discrimination is from Jews agians Nazis. there are no "good" or "bad" guys in the world. only "people majority agrees with" and "people majority disagrees with". there is no some kind of higher morals at play. its all human defined. Nazis shoudl be persecuted for crimes they did based on our made up justice system, not "because their are nazis". Meaning of ddiscrimination does not change just because you discriminate against people majority does not like.

So...people are defending a bigot.

are they? show me where!

 

[wulf3n]

You didn't answer my question

But I did.

Well they'd still be perfectly capable at answering phones, coding websites, and so on, they'd just take action in their private time that was in direct opposition to their company. But that apparently doesn't matter to you, because no competent worker can ever be fired for anything they do outside of business hours.

Incorrect. I'm not saying they can't be fired. Just that to fire someone based on anything other than their ability to perform their job is essentially discrimination.

This is, of course, ignoring the fact that we do tolerate intolerance.

Except for Mozilla obviously, who requested he step down. And OKCupid to a lesser extent who wanted to ruin an entire company to punish one man.

Unless of course you think punishing someone for their beliefs/legal actions is "tolerance"

What we don't do is what you've said we don't have to do, accept them.

This situation went above and beyond simply "not accepting" and fell squarely into a systematic attempt to punish a person for supporting something they believed in. Not only that they were willing to lump innocents in along with him [other Mozilla employees].

"Prejudiced few" is a nice way of saying "some employees, a dating site, lots of people on the internet, a board member or two, and all this within the first few days."

Really I thought I was being subtly insulting.

Couple that with the fact that the actions that caused the negative PR being against the company's values and that Eich isn't apparently that valuable as a CEO, and Mozilla has no reason to keep him on other than maybe an irrational commitment to his promotion.

The question must then be asked, if so many of the Board of Directors were aware of Eichs past why did the majority appoint him CEO in the first place?

How does this conversation have anything to do with rights and privileges. Eich's rights have not been violated and no one has taken his rights away. I have not said that people no longer have the right to an opinion. I've said that we treat people differently and discriminate in a much less severe way than denying them their rights.

I treat my best friend differently than that idiot in my seminar who won't shut up and let the class move on, but I don't decide that one deserves less rights, only that I like one less, don't respect one as much, and don't want to be near one as much. Shockingly, I thought such an idea wasn't controversial, but, going off of this and other threads, daring to not associate with someone you don't like is a horrible sin and I should feel terrible about treating my friends better than people I don't like.

This isn't about being jolly and polite to everyone, though that couldn't hurt. No, when I say equality I mean simply that everyone is given the same rights, not that a person must behave exactly the same towards everyone they meet.

The crux of this argument is that everyone has the right to an opinion and to not be persecuted by it. If you think someone being fired for supporting their belief does not undermine that principle then I fear we've reached an impasse, as we must disagree at such a fundamental level as to never truly be able to see eye to eye.

 

[NortherWolf]

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.

Yes Mr/Ms I-Don't-Get-It...Which was hyperbole on how I think you and your ilk consider the ones fighting for equality. I ain't advocating shit except making the world a better place. You're not. Easy as pie, yes?

 

[wulf3n]

Really, where's your answer to whether it's the crime or the conviction that determines whether you can discriminate? And where's your answer as to if it's okay to discriminate against the person who raped you? Be clear and definitive.

1) I never said a person can't discriminate.

2) If I've been raped has the person who raped me not committed a crime? An acquittal doesn't indicate whether or not a person has committed a crime, just that there's not enough evidence to convict. As I said before I don't consider it discrimination if your reason for firing someone is they've committed a crime, as you have a duty to protect all your employees.

Now people may still argue if there's no conviction then legally the persons innocent, and that is true, but that is also why I'm not arguing that a person can't discriminate.

And running a campaign that says the product your company makes is terrible has nothing to do with your ability to perform your job.

It does hence why I said

I would argue that would indicate they are unable to adequately perform their job.

If they weren't, we'd have a gladiator match between Eich and Tank from Cell Block D.

Physical violence is not the only indication of intolerance. One example would be proposing and supporting a law that attempts to limit the rights of others.

Yes, it was punishing someone for opposing civil rights, in the same way that I punish the shop owner who insulted my friend by not shopping there anymore. Is it okay that I and a bunch of other people decide we don't want to patronize someone that insults our friends or should we be forced to smile and continue going there anyway?

What about the shop owner that doesn't like your friend but acts perfectly polite and respectable towards him.

Gray areas don't have clear answers. It's something you have to decide for yourself.

Personally If a shopkeeper were insulting either myself or my friends when I shopped there I would consider that to be a poor business practice, the decision to not shop there wouldn't be because of the person but rather the quality of the service.

However if said shopkeeper insulted myself or my friend in a random encounter but still provided the best shopping experience I would continue to shop there.

Oh, and those "innocents" seemed to be the first people to actually try and "punish" Eich, considering there seems to be plenty of people within Mozilla who wanted Eich to leave and weren't shy about it.

There were obviously more that thought he was the best candidate for the job, and even more that didn't care about his personal life.

I wouldn't really consider it an insult, unless quantifying your statement in a way that is both more accurate and shows that your statement was misrepresented what happened is insulting.

In general people don't like to be called prejudiced regardless of whether or not they are. So I assumed I was making a jab at Mozilla and those who boycotted.

No idea, nor do I know how CEO's are actually appointed in privately held companies, though apparently in private corporations the incorporator might do it.

I ask because it would seem some one in Mozilla considered Eich to be the best choice, and given some employees left at his appointment it can't have been that his past actions were hidden knowledge, so I can only summise that it must not have been that much of an issue to them.

Except you don't have a right to not be persecuted for supporting your opinion. You've never had that right and you should never expect that right.

Hence why I'm so adamant about the issue. If this were a legal right the government/lawyers would be taking action. I believe this is a right people should give others out of courtesy.

We boycott people all the time for numerous reasons, each of which could be consider "persecutions,"

Not all. boycotting a product because it's a bad product wouldn't be persecution. Boycotting a company because the company itself holds intolerant views I wouldn't consider to be persecution. Boycotting a company because of one person however is.

but, like always, it's only when they're against bigots that people need to shut up and be forced buy their products and use their services.

No one is being forced to do anything. People are still free to boycott, they'll just have to put up with people saying why they think it's wrong.

And I'd hope people would react the same if it were a homosexual being fired for being homosexual, or a person of faith being fired for the religion, or a person being fired because of the colour of their skin.

 

[CloudAtlas]

I don't care about your definitions

Then why bother responding? If you feel your opinion is the right one, and don't care about my opinion why waste both our times?

1. Everyone believes that his/her own opinion is the right one, otherwise he/she would not hold it, so that's a rather lame accusation.

2. I didn't say I care about what you said. I care more about the content though and less about the words your using to describe it.

 

[wulf3n]

1. Everyone believes that his/her own opinion is the right one, otherwise he/she would not hold it, so that's a rather lame accusation.

My "accusation" was simply that if you don't care about my opinion, and are only willing to provide an opinion in return then the conversation can never go anywhere.

2. I didn't say I care about what you said.

I know, you said you didn't care.

I care more about the content though and less about the words your using to describe it.

My opinion was the content. I'm not trying to provide evidence, just my reasoning for my stance on the issue.

 

[CloudAtlas]

If you have such a problem with people fighting against homophobia/racism/sexism/etc, for equal rights for gays/people of color/women/etc, even if they do so in a way that you don't agree with, I have to assume that, if you're honest to yourself, you do have a problem with what they're fighting for, that you don't want these persons to be truly equal.

MORE of this IF YOUR NOT 100% with us you are a bigot and, homophobic trash talk

Yea... no. More like "if you are 0% with us then maybe you really are against us". Now I don't know about you, but I doubt it is that ridiculous to assume that if you so fervently loathe certain people who care deeply about a certain issue, then that might have to do something with your views about said issue.

now you accuse me directly yea, I no longer need to speak to a person dead set on attacking others for not being 100% on board with their bully parade to make others feel like a lesser beings.

Yea damn those social justice warriors for making homophobes (in this case) and the like feel bad for their bigoted opinions. How dare they. And damn them for their reprehensible tactics in doing so. Horrible things like publicly stating you don't want to use someone's product anymore, how extreme. I mean, if they'd just want to pass laws or something that legally & openly discriminate against others, that wouldn't be so bad, would it.
Because we all know the real victims are not gays, the people who are actually discriminated against, no, the true victims are the people who think of gays as less worthy (or worse) and want to deny them the same rights they enjoy themselves and are now increasingly critiziced for holding such opinions and acting on them.

 

[chikusho]

So by phrasing it like that, are you hoping that I would reply with something like ''Yes because it's unnatural'' or do you want me to respond with statistics such as the rates of HIV infection in first world countries being highest in homosexual communities? I could also bring up Germany's march for zoophile rights from 2013 who are trying to claim the exact same equal rights because they believe animal-human relationships can be loving and consensual. There's also the case with the vancouver pride parade where marching around naked in a ''Family friendly'' event is meant to be a sign of pride instead of just being disgusting and inappropriate for children.

Nope. By phrasing it like that I was hoping that you would realize the fact that what you call "being bullied into submission" for "expressing a different opinion" as something that "has become a farce" is really a far, far cry from what that community has been and is continually exposed to.

On the other hand, you only seem to think this is a problem because a white straight male from a privileged position took sides against a group that has nothing to do with you. This is a guy that's probably already set for life, who chose to step down after his employees and half his board decided they didn't want him for a CEO. On the other hand, people within the LGBT community regularly get literally bullied out of life. Being attacked, abused, shamed and bullied into suicide by a factor of up to 40 percent, when they are not straight up murdered.

I have no idea where you got that HIV/zoophile crap from, but I suggest you pack it in again.

The topic itself was for a guy who was forced out of a company he founded because he donated to a cause which believes that the term Marriage is for a man and a woman. Not about same gendered relationships. Yet, the guy is being treated as if he wants to cause a genocide. If he had donated to the other side, he would have been considered a hero or some sort martyr, but because his views don't agree with the gay gestapo, he was made a target. Asking for equality is one thing, forcing it down everyone's throat and calling for a witch hunt if someone doesn't want to kowtow to their every little whim is an absolute joke.

The topic itself was for a guy who chose to step down from a role as CEO because his employees didn't want to work under a man who would deny them their civil rights. The guy is being treated as a public figure whose stance against equal rights is not approved by passively being asked to step down by the people he would be in charge of, and simply boycotted by outsiders who can't get behind his stance.

Also, funny you should use the word "Gestapo". You know, since the actual gestapo officially arrested over 50 000 people for being homosexuals between 33 and 43. At the first stage they were marked with a "pink triangle", then they were put into prison. After that everyone who had ever served time in prison, and countless more from all over Germany and their occupied territories, were rounded up and sent to concentration camps. Towards the end of the war, homosexuals were marked up and sent out into battle as cannon fodder against attacking forces, and even straight up murdered by guards for fun.

You should be a bit more careful about the connotations you use. You say Eich gets treated as someone who wants to cause a genocide, yet you call the people who oppose him by the name of people who actually caused genocide.

 

[CloudAtlas]

(...)I mean, you can't honestly believe that hating someone because of his ethnicity/religion/gender/sexual orientation/etc is morally equivalent to the desire of these persons not to be hated, disadvantaged, or worse, nor is acting on these respective beliefs.

they are. discrimination is still discrimination, even if that discrimination is from Jews agians Nazis. there are no "good" or "bad" guys in the world. only "people majority agrees with" and "people majority disagrees with". there is no some kind of higher morals at play. its all human defined. Nazis shoudl be persecuted for crimes they did based on our made up justice system, not "because their are nazis". Meaning of ddiscrimination does not change just because you discriminate against people majority does not like.

There you have it. Committing genocide is morally just as fine as not wanting to be exterminated, if only enough people believe it is. That's moral relativism pushed ot the extreme. I take it that you don't believe in the existence of fundamental human rights of some sort either?

I wonder though... Would you feel the same way though if you were at the receiving end of such discriminatory practices? What if the majority suddenly decided that you, Strazdas, don't deserve to live anymore? Would you still excuse them, because, you know, that's just the majority opinion and the majority is apparently always right?

Honestly, if all people thought like you the world would be a horrible place. It is not, though, because in the past, there were people who believed strongly that what the majority at that time thought was right was wrong, deeply wrong, and often risked their lives in fighting for what they believed in.

 

[FEichinger]

So, let me sum up what happened:

Brendan Eich, a man who financially supported a law that would clearly define "marriage" as a union between man and woman (however doesn't prohibit the implementation of civil unions with the same rights as marriage) six years ago, a man who employed and supported homosexuals, a man who has tremendous expertise in his field, is appointed CEO of Mozilla, a company - again - openly in support of homosexuals that produces a free web browser. Then, people demonize him for this donation to a cause he believed in, to the extent that his company's product is boycotted, to the extent that he is essentially forced to step down to prevent further harm for the company at large.

There's a bunch of things things I still cannot grasp about this:

1.) Proposition Eight is seen as "discriminating against gays". Before Proposition Eight, gay marriage wasn't a thing in California either, as far as I can tell. This law doesn't "take away" any rights. It doesn't prevent you from getting those rights (unless said "rights" you're talking about is the "right" to call your relationship a "marriage" - a term that is used for a religious institution by religions that, currently at least, heavily oppose this idea of "gay marriage"). Donating to this law doesn't make him a "discriminating bigot". It makes him a person with a political opinion you disagree with.

2.) And this already brings me to my next point: There's quite some double-think at work here as to what constitutes "actively doing something", "publicly speaking out" and merely "holding a personal belief". Apparently some people really can't decide if donating to this cause now means he "actively supports discrimination" or if he just "spoke with his money", so they just pretend he did both. I'm sorry, but this just makes no sense. He chose to donate to a cause he believes in - just like you all choose to donate to pro-LGBT efforts and equal rights movements. Ten years ago, this very same thing that happened to Eich today, would have happened to all of you - for the same reasons: You support - and "actively" so, apparently - something the society at large disagrees with. I've said it in the other thread already: This isn't a fight for equal rights anymore. This is the other side gaining the upper hand and doing the exact same thing to the new "minority". No, "but they're bigots!" does not justify this. You are the side that promotes tolerance, equal rights and open discourse. Instead, you are just a slightly more inclusive variant of the close-mindedness you opposed.

3.) This was a boycott against a company. Yet, it was about the single person at the top, who demonstrably has not pushed his personal opinion on the company. The justification for this is "I do not want to support him financially.", which also makes no sense. See, you're also saying his life isn't ruined because he already made a fortune, or that he could get a job elsewhere. Even if we assume that's right (and I disagree especially on the second part, but more about that later), by boycotting the company you're not just "not supporting" him financially, you're "not supporting" the hundreds of other employees Mozilla has, many of whom are LGBT as well. So, again, this leaves the conclusion that this is purely about him, but it's an attack on the whole company purely because he works there.

4.) And this also brings me to the next point: "He can get a job elsewhere.", I've mentioned that already. This is nonsense. The very people I am complaining about here, "Social Justice Warriors", they will hunt him down wherever he goes, until they tire or he breaks completely. He can#t just get a job elsewhere, because any company that hires him would get the very same pressure for "supporting a bigot". This is the very same argument just presented for boycotting Mozilla - why not boycott the next company that hires him? If you don't, you are again supporting him financially. If you do, you're hunting him down across jobs. Good job keeping that moral integrity there.

5.) Apologies are requested. I don't get it. Why would he have to apologize for his opinion? Are we now shoving religious people in the closet because they don't like the idea of a "gay marriage"? Can you only have any form of public life if you fully embrace the rainbow and refuse to so much state the idea that there might be a difference between state and church when it comes to unions? Every single one of you has some form of controversial opinion that, in fourty years, might be the next big thing to fight against. Or the next big thing to support. Who knows. By the logic presented here, against Eich's donation from six years ago, none of you will ever be allowed to have any influential public position, purely because there is the potential for yet another screaming mob to try and bully you out of your job for your opinion.

6.) This is a shining example of "Us vs Them", and I have also said that in the previous thread. If you don't 100% perfectly and fully support everything the LGBT movement wants, you will have a screaming mob with pitchforks on your heels, attempting to make your life miserable at every turn. That is, if you're a valuable target, since this is obviously also about money. But that's not even what I want to focus on: I just do not understand how a movement so focused on equal rights, tolerance, acceptance, and being part of society then tries to demonize people for not sharing that. And this isn't just about people actively working against you. As I said above, this time the movement at large attacked a person who supports the cause, but doesn't agree with some of its details.

I am obviously generalizing here. There are a great deal of people in this movement that are shaking their head at this incident as well, but at the end of the day - thanks to OKCupid and everyone joining this mob holding the banner up high - this incident reflects on the entire movement. And it made me rethink this movement. I'm going to say this very bluntly now: I am partially inclined to support the opposition at this point, purely to give you some time to think about what you're trying to achieve. But one thing I am certain about is that I will not hold the banner myself. I will not speak in favour of this movement, because it has demonstrated that it is not staying true to its ideals once it's given sufficient power.