Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[Kopikatsu]

You've talked yourself into a circle and lost the debate; you argue it is semantics to want the same marriage as heterosexual people, but not semantics for Black Americans to want to sit on the same bus. If the bus is going to the same place, or if there is two buses, one for blacks and one for whites, it doesn't matter if you cannot get on one, only the other.

Gay people cannot wed, only have a union.
Black people cannot use the white bus, only the black one.
Both do the same thing.
Semantics.

Shall we gather up some Black Americans so you can inform of this semantic?

I'm sure they'd enjoy to hear how you're comparing actual instances of oppression to wordplay. It's hilariously offensive.

Restricting people from an entire line of buses is just that. You are restricting them from a service, which is at the very least an inconvenience. What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage in terms of benefits? Go ahead, I can wait.

No, no, no. You said it yourself! It's semantics. Gay people can't get married. They can have a union. Black people can't use that bus, but this one instead. Same service, same times, same routes, same result. What's the difference?

C'mon, don't try to play it off now that you have to apply your logic to an issue you feel uncomfortable applying it to.

So I'm going to assume that the reason you're answering a question with another question is because you realized (or already knew) that there is functionally no difference between a marriage and a civil union aside from the name used to describe it. It's good that we got that out of the way.

I don't feel uncomfortable applying it to race issues. It's just not equatable. In the case of the buses, you're telling them 'You can't use X'. But civil unions have no such difference. They are the same in all but name. With the buses, there are two different lines. The reason Jim Crow laws were ruled unconstitutional in the first place is because even though they're separate, two different services cannot be of equal quality, and so 'separate but equal' is actually inherently unequal. And what about Hispanics? Indians? Latinos? There are more than two races in the world, you know.

A better example would be Native Americans wanting to be called such instead of Indians.

No, no, no. You said it yourself! It's semantics. Gay people can't get married. They can have a union.

What's the difference? No really, I'm not sure how it's defined in legislation with you, seeing as I'm not American. What's the difference between the two, what does one have that the other doesn't?

A civil union isn't recognized by all countries as being valid (Israel for instance, will accept a gay marriage from the US but not a civil union of homosexuals as valid), but that's not an American thing, so whatever.

That's basically it.

 

[Bombiz]

hey man i'm on your side. i was just saying what he might have been saying. also as a note. i'm not white. I'm Iranian. though i guess you could call that if want.

My apologies, I took what you said the wrong way then. Still, please be aware that your argument is dangerously close to a standard racist rationale of e.g. why white US folks can't just abolish slavery. Since it is a rather convenient argument, I would imagine it was used in places other than the West in a similar fahsion, but admittedly I do no know.

could have been used in roman times when slavery was a thing that just existed (though more for the reason of "we conquered your nation you now work for use" then the more recent one "hurrh durr you black therefore slave" ). Hell even the Greeks did it (AND THEY FOUND THE MODERN PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY). In fact the only empire to not have slaves (at least I think) where the Persians(which would be because there religion prevented them from doing so and that their leader Cyrus the Great invented the concept of human rights).

 

[Signa]

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.

Thank you for that *slow claps*

Really, this isn't the first time this has happened, but it's getting to the point where I too am having difficulties supporting the movement. Straight white males are of no concern to them, even when their manta is tolerance for all.

 

[wulf3n]

I no longer have the time to respond fully, so I'll pick the part I feel the most important.

But courtesies are given to those who give them back, and Eich has made it clear that he doesn't extend the same courtesies to gay people that he does everyone else, meaning that he shouldn't expect to receive them in turn.

That mentality ends in a vicious cycle. If a person is truly against bigotry they'll extend the same courtesies they would like to receive. Even to those who spit in their face.

Yeah, because there are so many good jobs paying a living wage available these days that each and every employee has a clear moral choice. /sarc

So you're saying someone who say works for the Westboro Baptist church doesn't have a clear moral choice? Obviously there'll be gray areas in which either the actions are unknown, or are ethically fuzzy, where such a black and white distinction doesn't work, but that is not what I was referring to, and am frankly a little insulted that's what you assumed I meant.

 

[ninetails593]

To think that before we only had speculation as to how speaking out against homosexuality caused zealous hordes to ruin your life. Now we actually have proof!
Thank you, boycotters, for demonstrating the fascist grip of the LGBTQIA.

 

[EiMitch]

Yes, I'm sure non-American posters have exact knowledge about what Prop 8 is. After all, the world consists of "USA" and "people nobody cares about, so fuck them, right".

Yeah, you got me. How arrogant of me to presume such a thing way back page one of... No, wait! I said that on page thirteen! Three days after this thread was started. If someone reading this thread from the beginning to that point still doesn't know, they were probably just skimming with glazed eyes.

Something that was determined well after the fact. So no he wasn't supporting anything unconstitutional because at the time it was still considered constitutional.

The same could be said of segregation. Or slavery. Or denying women's rights.

But that's just emotionally-loaded rhetoric, isn't it? Its not the same thing at all in this case, because we're just talking about teh gheys, right? Its no big freaking deal. /sarc

In all seriousness, how did a court conclude prop 8 was unconstitutional? By looking into a crystal ball? Or by reading the constitution? This isn't rocket science. The bigots supporting prop 8 should've known better.

So you're saying someone who say works for the Westboro Baptist church doesn't have a clear moral choice? Obviously there'll be gray areas in which either the actions are unknown, or are ethically fuzzy, where such a black and white distinction doesn't work, but that is not what I was referring to, and am frankly a little insulted that's what you assumed I meant.

I make a comment about how hard it is to find gainful employment, as opposed to the "still need welfare along with this paycheck" wages at Wal-Mart and fast food. And your mind jumps to Westboro. Because a small group based entirely on hate propaganda is the same as a larger employer like Apple, I guess? **shrugs**

O~okay, so are you saying Mozilla employees didn't have a clear choice, but Apple employees did? And what about other smartphone companies? Or modern electronics in general? Where do you think they're all made these days? Should we condemn all employees in the electronics industry? Where else could they put their skills to use and get paid a living wage without the baggage of directly or indirectly exploiting poor people in sweatshops? Seriously, what alternatives exist for them?

Lemme cut-&-paste an example I made for kiri2tsubasa's consumption:

So if someone with a history of antisemitic discriminatory practices subsequently runs a business, during which he shows no sign of his past bigotry, would you then tell Jews protesting that business to bug off?

Are you going to defend those employees, or insist they should've known better? Wait, I didn't even say what this hypothetical business was. Could it be a mom-&-pop sized operation, or a larger company? Is it a baked-goods manufacturer, a software firm, or does it really matter?

I can keep this up for days, or until you quit denying that demonizing people, not merely disagreeing but demonizing, for exercising their freedom of choice of which browser they use is hypocritical hyperbole. You don't even have to swallow your pride and admit it. You can just stop.

 

[Vegosiux]

Yes, I'm sure non-American posters have exact knowledge about what Prop 8 is. After all, the world consists of "USA" and "people nobody cares about, so fuck them, right".

Yeah, you got me. How arrogant of me to presume such a thing way back page one of... No, wait! I said that on page thirteen! Three days after this thread was started. If someone reading this thread from the beginning to that point still doesn't know, they were probably just skimming with glazed eyes.

And as always, it's all someone else's fault, yes. That's a bit of a familiar rhetoric by this point, I must say.

 

[BytByte]

He didn't say jack shit in his 2012 "apology" [https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/] other than that Mozilla's about inclusion so everyone needs to shut up about it and accept him. The only time I think he's ever been recorded apologizing was in his 2014 post [https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/] where he apologizes for causing pain, not for actually supporting prop 8. Find me a quote where he supports gay marriage, or apologizes for his donation, or anything actually proving your point.

Pssst, that's not how debate works. You don't demand that your opponent finds your evidence for you, you provide it yourself.

That's a bit unfair, you are supposed to give him evidence to why Eich might have changed his mind, because LifeCharacter does not believe Eich has changed his mind. Why would he actively look for information to prove himself wrong. It is your job as the opposing party to find evidence to hopefully persuade him to join your side. You find him a quote, not the other way around.

No, don't YOU dare. Don't you dare compare a few decades of oppression and bullying to over four centuries of abject dehumanizing. Any statistic you can quote, any shock value you can provide, I can exceed it. Read up on your black history if you want to understand how truly out of your depth you are right now.

You do not want to go down this road. I promise you, it's not a debate you want to have. So don't start one.

Don't make a comparison between the plight of the black community and the LGBT community's fight in California again. It's offensive and only serves to piss everyone off. It is a bad comparison, and everyone here knows it. So don't do it.

This is not some dick measuring contest, dude. Chill out. Both of these issues have their own dehumanizing aspects that are repulsive, no one is saying otherwise. Each group has faced adversity, in different ways, at different times. True, one may even be "worse" than the other, because being property is a pretty big deal rather than not being able to marry. But both of these are true problems that need to be solved. Pointing out a problem, like Eich donating a paltry amount of money, may seem small and inconsequential, but every little bit counts in trying to gain equal treatment for everyone. Will this completely revolutionize LGBT rights? Of course not. But down the road it can be used as an example where a man who did something that aided in the discrimination of people was peacefully protested against to try and raise awareness for equality.

 

[weirdee]

Additional detail: before Eich stepped down, half of the board of directors resigned

http://www.bilerico.com/2014/03/half_of_mozillas_board_resigns_pressure_mounts_on_.php

 

[BytByte]

Again, that isn't how debate works. You don't make a claim (an unsubstantiated one at that) and then demand that your opponent finds proof otherwise, or else declare yourself the defacto "winner". He made the initial claims, and it's his job to prove them.

He did back it up. He gave you links to the 2012 interview and the 2014 apology. And besides, he was asking you to prove where it said Eich had changed his views. He provided evidence for his point. You have yet to provide evidence disproving his point like JaneTheDoe asked.

1) I didn't make the comparison first, JaneTheDoe did.

But you are still saying that the comparison is completely invalid, which I disagree with.

I'm simply not going to put up with anyone in this thread attempting to compare the LGBT community's relatively positive treatment in California with blacks having to sit in the back of the bus, because it's just plain wrong. It's absolutely ridiculous that anyone thought that was a good comparison to make in the first place, and it needs to end here and now. Trying in any way to compare the struggle of the LGBT community to that of the black community as if they're even remotely similar in magnitude or scale is intellectually dishonest at best, and grossly racist and offensive at worst.

There are parts where the comparison is good and other parts where it's on shaky ground. Yes, black people were physically discriminated against with segregation, and gay people would just not be able to get married. So, while not as harsh discrimination, it is still absolutely detestable discrimination. Discrimination, regardless of scale or magnitude, is terrible. Both groups have been discriminated against. Relatively positive treatment is not enough when people are still openly insulting and threatening gay people. Like I said, not some dick measuring contest. Both are bad, and both should receive as much support as possible to try and correct the mistakes of the past.

Edit: Oh god the quotes.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

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.

Discrimination is not inherently bad, but simply means to discern things from other things. Discerning that bigots are bad is generally a valid conclusion. Discerning that homosexuals are bad will make people dislike you.

For example, would it be discrimination for a Jewish temple to refuse to let Nazis into their services? By definition it would be, but it would still probably be smart.

 

[BytByte]

For the third time, that's not how debate works. Please go back and read the entire discussion. You've jumped in mid-way, and don't seem to know what's going on.

What they claimed to take issue with (earlier in the thread) was his actions, not his words. To which people have said "fine, what anti-gay actions has he performed in the last six years, other than his Prop 8 donation?". They have provided none. Then, after that, they demanded that we prove he's changed. Essentially, their plan was to claim that the absence of evidence on our part = evidence on their part. But that's not how a debate works.

So as I've already said, it really doesn't matter if he does still believe that way or not. I don't need to "prove" anything, because they still haven't conclusively proven that he's committed any anti-gay actions since Prop 8. If they can provide proof that he's still contributing actively to the anti-gay movement, then I'd be agreeing with them. It's the fact that they can't do so, but still insist on harassing him even now, that has me disagreeing with them.

Well first off, I have not seen why people keep saying he was harassed. OKcupid brought something to the wider public's attention, and some people may have chosen to not use Firefox. I don't see any information pointing to angry gay people demanding he either stepped down or faced the consequences of a minority. Please please please point me to somewhere where LGBT people were vocally angry and threatening, because in 14 pages, there has not been anything like that. If you do one thing from this reply, find me that. Otherwise, people are not harassing him. They are just not associating with him.

Either way, all the public knows now is that Eich at one time supported a discriminatory law, while there is no evidence that he no longer supports it. That means, while he could have changed, he also could not have changed, and the public has the donation as the only action to base their views off of. There is little evidence of his views for both sides, but their is more evidence saying he supports anti-gay legislation rather than opposes it. Based off the knowledge we know, it is more likely he still supports the legislation.

It's nice that you disagree, but it is still an invalid comparison. The whole thing was on shaky ground from its very inception. But in the interests of sticking to what I said in my last post, I'm not discussing it any more. It's just offensive, and it bothers me that I even humored it as long as I did. Instead, I'll explain in as few words as possible why the issue in question isn't comparable.

The marriage issue brought up by Prop 8 was a debate purely of semantics, not "civil rights". At the time of Prop 8 (2008), gays could already have civil unions for three years (since 2005). From a legal standpoint, they were essentially considered "married", with all the same rights. Granted, in some countries, those unions would not be recognized as "marriage", but unless you intended to go to the Middle East (where gay marriage is far, far from being a reality), that wasn't a problem.

Even if it is semantics, it is still dehumanizing. You may not care that if someone called your marriage a civil union or whatever but some people do. Different people put different weight on things, so a religious gay couple may really want to get a marriage, but this proposition did not allow them to. Some couples could care less, but to some they may feel they are not being treated as equals. Lack of equality is the problem. It was and is a problem for black people, as well as gay people and all other minorities. It is comparable.