Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[EiMitch]

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.

So, by your logic, discriminating against LGBTs doesn't make you a bigot, it makes you a victim? Treating other minorities as less than equal is considered bad, but treating teh gheys that way is somehow different? Prejudice against LGBTs isn't wrong, but LGBTs not liking such treatment is?

This is the reverse-victim trope I've been complaining about since my first post in this thread.

I don't mind people arguing whether or not Eich should've stepped down, so long as it isn't couched in that Orwellian "prop 8 wasn't bad, protesting is" newspeak. But pretty much everyone seems to be doing just that. Is this entire side of the debate getting all their talking points from Fox News or something? You don't have to ally yourselves with incognito homophobes to lament that this dispute could've been settled some other way. Its almost like folks don't really care about Eich or Mozilla, so long as they have an excuse to trash-talk LGBTs.

 

[EiMitch]

You gave a hypothetical with no clear indication as to what, if any companies you were referring to. My Jump to Westboro was to give a clear example in which a moral/ethical dilemma is clear to the employee.

But you're the one who passed judgement on those "hypothetical" other companies.

Boycotting a company because it uses 3rd world sweatshops: Fine.
Boycotting a company because they refuse to serve people of certain faiths/ethnicity/Sexual Preferences: Fine.

I mere asked simple follow-up questions.

I honestly don't know if Mozilla employees had a choice, and I don't remember mentioning Apple.

But you did mention sweatshops. Or have you never heard of Foxconn?

I never said "condemn" simply bear some responsibility.

But you did say you'd demonize LGBT protestors in this case. What did you think that meant?

Again, I don't have enough information to form an opinion.

...

I wouldn't have a clue.

My point exactly! You're argument is a double-standard (protesting against Mozilla is bad, protesting against other companies isn't) based on another double-standard (Mozilla employees are innocent, but employees of other companies protested had a clear moral choice) based on hot air. (I don't know about those other companies that have been protested or their employees, but...) You doubled-down, and then back-peddled. This has disintegrated your argument. Because if you don't know about those other "hypothetical" real world cases, then how can you blanket condemn employees of those companies while defending Mozilla employees as innocent?

Its hyperbole and hypocrisy and nothing more.

I would not tell them to "bug off" as I have not told the Mozilla boy-cotters to bug off.

No, you just proudly admitted to demonizing them.

As for whether or not I would agree with their boycott, it would all depend on whether or not the antisemitic discriminatory practices are a part of the business or simply the actions of the individual.

I made that part quite clear. Go back and read it again.

I don't demonize them for exercising their freedom of choice, I demonize the choice itself.

Oh really? I believe your exact words were...

I will always demonize those who are willing to punish innocent people to get at a single person. Had they just been protesting Eich there would be no problem, but given their actions were also threatening to put another 600+ people out of work, I will very much demonize that action.

Lemme guess: poor choice of words?

Still against bigotry, just not in the sense that you can never treat anyone differently ever no matter what they do because that's wrong.

Again this isn't about treating everyone the same, and I'm not saying they're the same [unless of course they start stabbing people in the face,]. No what I'm saying that on the scale of "bad" the Bigot who is prejudiced for no reason is certainly at the worse end of the scale than those who are only bigoted towards bigots. However their actions are still on the scale of bad.

So you can be "bigoted" towards bigots, with the caveat that its "less bad"? Thats just reverse-victim lite.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

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.

So, by your logic, discriminating against LGBTs doesn't make you a bigot, it makes you a victim? Treating other minorities as less than equal is considered bad, but treating teh gheys that way is somehow different? Prejudice against LGBTs isn't wrong, but LGBTs not liking such treatment is?

This is the reverse-victim trope I've been complaining about since my first post in this thread.

I don't mind people arguing whether or not Eich should've stepped down, so long as it isn't couched in that Orwellian "prop 8 wasn't bad, protesting is" newspeak. But pretty much everyone seems to be doing just that. Is this entire side of the debate getting all their talking points from Fox News or something? You don't have to ally yourselves with incognito homophobes to lament that this dispute could've been settled some other way. Its almost like folks don't really care about Eich or Mozilla, so long as they have an excuse to trash-talk LGBTs.

Stop being daft, use the language and context clues, and realize that you are incorrect in what you thought I was asserting. I said discriminating against bigots is fine while discriminating against homosexuals is grounds to be fired from a major position. Or did you not bother reading the post I was quoting, or even for that matter my post?

It is sheer laziness to so radically misinterpret somebody's words.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Of course you don't. Because separation between the races is no longer fashionable. I described an identical scenario, where the results are the exact same, but in that instance, the semantics were no longer just semantics and separating people was uncomfortable. But it's ok to do that to gay people. It's... "Just different." Nice to see you have zero strength of conviction.

I don't like repeating myself, but here we go. It's not an accurate analogy because it was ruled by the Supreme Court, whose opinion you seem to value so much, separate services or facilities are inherently unequal.

A better analogy would be if for white people they were called buses and for black people they're called shuttles. They're exactly the same thing, and nobody is forced to sit anywhere they don't want to (provided the seat isn't already occupied, obviously). The only thing that's different is the name. And you know? That's fine. Who gives a shit? It's purely semantics.

But that's not an American thing, so whatever.

A beautiful quote.

If countries in the middle east don't want to accept civil unions as valid, that's their prerogative. Most don't accept gay marriage in general either. That's not a US problem.

 

[tangoprime]

A better analogy would be if for white people they were called buses and for black people they're called shuttles. They're exactly the same thing, and nobody is forced to sit anywhere they don't want to (provided the seat isn't already occupied, obviously). The only thing that's different is the name. And you know? That's fine. Who gives a shit? It's purely semantics.

Regarding how the California/Prop 8 situation was, this is probably the greatest analogy I've ever heard. Just wanted to give you props for it.

Since I haven't commented on this topic since the last thread when it was still an early story, all I have to say is this-
We've now confirmed yet again that a well qualified, productive individual who gets results at his job is completely able to be publicly shamed out of their position due to a political stance they took 6 years ago, and a contribution of less than 1% of their income towards raising awareness of the political stance. These are the tactics used by those who are ostensibly part of the moral high ground when someone disagrees with a specific facet of their political position. Thanks for the info, and to everyone who has an opinion they may want to share, be sure to check your privilege first, it may come back and bite you in the ass in a couple of years when we're more enlightened as a whole.

 

[Kopikatsu]

A better analogy would be if for white people they were called buses and for black people they're called shuttles. They're exactly the same thing, and nobody is forced to sit anywhere they don't want to (provided the seat isn't already occupied, obviously). The only thing that's different is the name. And you know? That's fine. Who gives a shit? It's purely semantics.

Regarding how the California/Prop 8 situation was, this is probably the greatest analogy I've ever heard. Just wanted to give you props for it.

Since I haven't commented on this topic since the last thread when it was still an early story, all I have to say is this-
We've now confirmed yet again that a well qualified, productive individual who gets results at his job is completely able to be publicly shamed out of their position due to a political stance they took 6 years ago, and a contribution of less than 1% of their income towards raising awareness of the political stance. These are the tactics used by those who are ostensibly part of the moral high ground when someone disagrees with a specific facet of their political position. Thanks for the info, and to everyone who has an opinion they may want to share, be sure to check your privilege first, it may come back and bite you in the ass in a couple of years when we're more enlightened as a whole.

It's a terrible analogy, because they are blatantly, objectively wrong. Civil unions are not recognized by the U.S. federal government, do not cross state borders and do not grant the same state rights as marriage in many of the states that even allow homosexual civil unions.

States that don't recognize civil unions don't recognize gay marriages either, so that's a moot point.

And if you can explicitly name a State and how it treats civil unions differently from marriage, that'd be great. Because I don't know of any that makes a legal distinction between the two. Civil unions also don't end at the state line. They're valid in any state that recognizes civil unions and/or gay marriages.

None of this is relevant to Proposition 8 anyway. In California, civil unions and marriages have been exactly the same since 2005. Since the discussion is about Eich donating a grand to Prop 8, anything outside of California is irrelevant and beyond the scope of the issue at hand.

 

[wulf3n]

Lemme guess: poor choice of words?

Not really, our back and forth demonstrated that my initial assertions were disturbingly similar to what I was criticising. As such I reevaluated my position.

Still against bigotry, just not in the sense that you can never treat anyone differently ever no matter what they do because that's wrong.

Again this isn't about treating everyone the same, and I'm not saying they're the same [unless of course they start stabbing people in the face,]. No what I'm saying that on the scale of "bad" the Bigot who is prejudiced for no reason is certainly at the worse end of the scale than those who are only bigoted towards bigots. However their actions are still on the scale of bad.

So you can be "bigoted" towards bigots, with the caveat that its "less bad"? Thats just reverse-victim lite.

I agree, however you do realise you're referring to the LGBT community and their supporters with that statement right?

I would suggest that if you're going to join in on an existing conversation that you read the entire conversation and determine who's arguing what. Because I wasn't advocating that it's ok to be bigoted towards bigots. Yet here you not only imply that I do but also that I'm referring to my own actions.

 

[Onepostonly]

I'm not going to take up much time or space to explain my opinion on the matter. I signed up only to give this one post.

From a relatively neutral position (18 years old, male, straight but with many bi and gay friends), my personal opinion of the LGBT community and those who support it in the United States has taken a hit because of this, and I definitely have a lower opinion of them than before. I do not believe that this is a fair and just action to have come to somebody who, like it or not, had an opinion. From the first time I encountered this story, I had the impression that this was essentially society punishing somebody for thoughtcrime. This is especially bothering to me, because this isn't something that was, at the time, considered backwards and worthy of punishment. Because we hold a different moral code to those who came before us, should they be punished for having their beliefs, due to the fact that those beliefs are not currently in the main? No.

In a couple of years, it is entirely plausible that the shoe will be back on the other foot. That LGBTs and their supporters will be in the minority, and someone in a high position of power will donate to a cause of "maintain the definition of marriage to include gays". And if they were to be fired from their job, the entire LGBT community would be up in arms. I definitely would be. Especially if they were fired due to a huge public reaction that was disproportionate to the issue at hand. People wanted him gone, for not sharing this belief. This can be seen from this quote from washingtonexaminer.com

"CEO Brendan Eich should make an unequivocal statement of support for marriage equality," a Credoaction petition signed by almost 75,000 people said, per The Inquirer. "If he cannot, he should resign. And if he will not, the board should fire him immediately."

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/brendan-eichs-downfall/?_ga=1.139962483.1186306336.1396924087


This is not a couple of people switching to google chrome. This is 75000 people wanting a man fired due to his position on something completely unrelated to his job, when he had never had a problem with it interfering with his job before. This goes beyond the 'reverse-victim trope' someone was complaining about. This is no longer people pushing back against oppression. This man did nothing for 6 years, and at the time he did it it was the popular opinion, he stated that he would try and maintain a good working environment for his company, that his personal views were not going to be impacting and that the LGBT community would be beyond welcome for his company. It is about as close to an apology over a personal opinion as you can have. Especially one that is not necessarily wrong for him to have. He never indicated that he hated gays, he never discriminated in the workplace, and he said that he was sorry for the hurt his position had on people.

The reverse victim trope describes an oppressor saying that he is the victim of oppression where none exists. This man was hounded out of a job from a company he founded and was one of the most influential members of, by 75,000 people, for having an opinion on a topic that they didn't agree with, before he could have any time to prove them wrong, for an action of really small proportions 6 years prior.

Those of you who would have been negatively affected by Prop 8 will undoubtedly see this as a victory. I know that, and I can understand your viewpoint. However, to people who were on the fence about these issues, or even the ones who are small supporters of your position in this matter, this is seen as something that damages your reputation. People will see this as being a major overreaction to a very minor issue from another decade following somebody around for years. It brings fuel to the fire that you will try and silence anyone else who comes before you, regardless of your message of fighting against intolerance.

I will say this as clearly as possible. To anyone who is not effected by their emotions on this issue, the LGBT community and their supporters come of very much as being the people in the wrong. This will drive more people away from your cause then it will attract people to it, and it will drive some who are with you now further away from you when they discover it. And those are the people who are sympathetic towards your cause. To those who dislike you or your cause, this will be further proof that they are right and you are not to be trusted or given any sort of power. The correct way to deal with this is to forgive and forget. That will show people a message of tolerance, and respect. That will be what changes the opinion of those most against you. Not this.

This leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Onepostonly]

...what? I'm not confused. I never said what happened was illegal. I never said that he was in the right by supporting proposition 8. I was saying that the level of vitriol this man received was disproportionate to what he deserved. This was not just the free market, people personally attacked him (by use of the petition) because of his opinion. I'm not saying that that was illegal. But it seemed very petty, and overall, puts the movement in jeopardy.

And it wasn't just the free market. 75,000 people signed a petition based on his actions from 6 years prior, which demanded that he either be for 'pro gay marriage' camp, or he would suffer major consequences. That is not the free market. That is persecution.

Also, for the reverse victim comment... you appear to have noticed that and come to a conclusion without reading what I said. I wasn't talking about homosexuals or anything in that part. I was saying that this situation is not the same thing as a reverse victim trope. It was used to describe Eich. Not the homosexuals. Yes, they were discriminated against back in 08, and to a lesser extent now. But I wasn't denying that. I never denied that.

Read what I say before you make incorrect assumptions.

 

[Strazdas]

They use "reason, logic, facts and benefit analysis" - to quote you directly - to arrive at their conclusions, just like you do. The only difference is that you refuse to use the word "moral".

Since you're probably still denying that, let me ask you: How exactly do you propose to determine the right course of action for a society without thinking about the (moral) value of the possible alternatives? I'm really curious to know.

and there is no reason to use the word moral here. as you said yourself, there is nothing thats moral or immoral here. its reason logic and benefit analysis.
Morality has no value. alternatives are about benefit to our society, and that is the value we assign to alternatives.

 

[Dragonbums]

And it wasn't just the free market. 75,000 people signed a petition based on his actions from 6 years prior, which demanded that he either be for 'pro gay marriage' camp, or he would suffer major consequences. That is not the free market. That is persecution.

Because random internet petitions carry so much weight right? What exactly were those people going to do? As someone stated earlier in this thread you are well within your rights as a US citizen to demand that a person get fired for doing X thing. The employer is under no obligation to follow through with that and the demander in question cannot do anymore than "demand" they get fired.

There is no prosecution. There never has been persecution, and there never will be. The police force isn't going to come in and swamp the guy out of his office. The government isn't going to take the guy and put him in trial at court. You all know these people aren't going to do shit if he didn't step down and the literal worse case scenario is that Mozilla loses a huge chunk of it's userbase to alternative browsers- which is within every right of the consumer to do (it's called speaking with your wallet.) and is not a form of radical activism or fascism as some people seem to legitimately believe in this thread. I also suppose there will be more whiny blogs about it too.

And that is how the free market works. A company, or a man/woman in charge of the company does something a consumer base doesn't like and as a result people don't use your services anymore. They use the competitions. Regardless of the reason why consumers did the specific actions means fuck all in that.

 

[CloudAtlas]

They use "reason, logic, facts and benefit analysis" - to quote you directly - to arrive at their conclusions, just like you do. The only difference is that you refuse to use the word "moral".

Since you're probably still denying that, let me ask you: How exactly do you propose to determine the right course of action for a society without thinking about the (moral) value of the possible alternatives? I'm really curious to know.

and there is no reason to use the word moral here. as you said yourself, there is nothing thats moral or immoral here. its reason logic and benefit analysis.
Morality has no value. alternatives are about benefit to our society, and that is the value we assign to alternatives.

You still haven't told me how you determine something as vague as "benefit to our society". What alternative benefits society the most? The one that maximizies GDP? The one that maximizes aggregate happiness? The one that protects whatever individual rights you deem important the most? And which rights do you deem important, and how important, in the first place? And what if the goals are at conflict with each other?

What logic, reason, and critical thought enable you is to make better, more consistent moral judgements, but they're moral judgements nonetheless. You'll realize then that, say, "because the Bible says so!" is generally a rather poor argument, but you still won't be able to find the objectively right answer to question of, say, under which circumstances the principle of non-intervention is superseded by the responsibility to protect fundamental human rights in a country where those are violated.
Seriously, I could give you dozens of real life examples like the latter one. But yea I repeat myself: Do tell me how you make judgements that are absolutely totally not moral in any way here... I'm waiting.