Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[jehk]

I don't agreeeeee with this position. I don't support this position. I'm ON your side of the fucking fence in terms of what I think SHOULD happen. I just have the foresight to allow people the right to have stupid opinions, or opinions I don't agree with without thinking it's okay that they get fired for it when it has nothing to do with their job.

ALSO how is this not blacklisting? You accept that it's okay that a man can be publicly shamed and lead to his removal from a job, but you think this can't happen again? Like the next job he takes, what if people continue to hound him? Sure he's got the money to probably just retire, but if you think the behavior here was acceptable when is no longer acceptable?

He actively supported oppression. That's more then just having a stupid opinion. He deserves everything he gets.

Well it's good to show every person who's on the fence about gay marriage, that the movement is controlled by zealots who'd just as quickly resort to witch hunts and purges for the sake of weeding out oppressors.

It also shows that the movement can't stay rational when faced with differing opinions, and resorts to the very things it denounced when it was happening to them.

What do you think happened here? There was nothing but well placed outrage at someone supporting oppression (which is way worse than just holding an opinion). There were no witch hunts. No zealots. No purges. The guy stepped down at the behest of the company he worked for.

There was a witch hunt. Someone said he did something that others don't like. People grabbed their torches and pitch forks, not taking into consideration, that this was his personal money, not professional. This was a while ago, and that he might not hold such beliefs any longer.

Tell me there aren't zealots though seriously. You think that the SJW's who mobilize at a moment's notice to spawn outrage whether it be real, fake or grey, are in anyway thinking about these things as rational individuals, who come to each of these conclusions after consideration and careful view of context? These people are zealots, they follow the beck and call of any face who declares something a wrong belief. Be it the recent Colbert debacle or this, there isn't thought, just dogma, and what's funny is you spout a lot of the same dogma. Constantly throwing the word oppression out there like it's a magical I have absolute morality button, therefore no action taken by said group is wrong so long as it's fighting oppression. No matter the results of said action, it was 100% justified if it was fighting oppression. Can you not see the holes in that logic? Can you not see how this horrid belief system only alienates rational people, and continues to separate people into groups? If not there really is no way to end discrimination, because the conduct of the oppressed will forever back the oppressor into the wall, either causing the current oppressor to turn into the oppressed or the oppressor to reassert it's control. This conduct damages the LGBT movement, and it needs to stop.

Holding an opinion that you believe is an opinion that supports oppression, is not illegal. Nor should it be ever. So long as they aren't enacting violence, this is not a crime, nor should it be.

What are you going on about? Some people on the Internet said "I'm not gonna use Mozilla because their CEO supported anti-gay legislation." That's it. There were no pitchforks. No zealots. No dogma being enforced. No one's free speech was impinged. No one was discriminated against.

Just a bunch of people saying "I cannot support this" then uninstalling some software.

Also, there is no rational argument for denying gay people the right to marry.

 

[DrOswald]

This man's job was as CEO of Mozilla, whose main product is Firefox. This browser gets money from Google because it has a sizable userbase. This money gets paid to the people who work for Mozilla Corp. That money was used by Eich to give to anti-LGBT funds. It would make sense, then, that if you don't want money to be given to the guy who's proven that he's supported this type of crowd in the past that you would then stop using this browser.

People have the right to be dicks about their opinions, but the moment they take an active cause against it, no matter if it's a 'private donation,' is the moment that you can take an active cause against them. If it stays as words, who cares? If money changes hands, that's when I do my best to make sure they don't get paid.

To bad we didn't do that, but instead came after him 6 years after the fact and demanded he denounce his religious beliefs only after he became a figure public enough to be worth hounding. He co-founded Mozilla and has been a employee there for years. Why didn't we go after them before? He didn't even want to be the CEO, he was pressured into putting his name into the hat when no other qualified individual would accept the post.

 

[TheIceQueen]

This man's job was as CEO of Mozilla, whose main product is Firefox. This browser gets money from Google because it has a sizable userbase. This money gets paid to the people who work for Mozilla Corp. That money was used by Eich to give to anti-LGBT funds. It would make sense, then, that if you don't want money to be given to the guy who's proven that he's supported this type of crowd in the past that you would then stop using this browser.

People have the right to be dicks about their opinions, but the moment they take an active cause against it, no matter if it's a 'private donation,' is the moment that you can take an active cause against them. If it stays as words, who cares? If money changes hands, that's when I do my best to make sure they don't get paid.

Do people really think they were part of some great movement to deny funds to anti-gay organizations? Because if so that's kind of sad. We're talking about $1000 to a specific campaign, as a CEO of a medium tech firm his watch probably costs more. he was hardly the financial underpinning of proposition eight and he's hardly the pillar of the anti LGBT establishment.

Mozilla had a very good attitude towards LBGT people, a company he had been a senior part of for nine years. The word i keep thinking of is petty. This came off really really petty. Like a tantrum. Pick your battles when it comes to these issues, you can't just go full force at everyone who has ever expressed or supported an opinion you disagree with.

Even one cent is enough to make me sway my opinion. No matter how low or how high, money is still money and even one cent that contributes to a cause can be used as a spear. As long as you keep it to words, I couldn't care less about what you say, but as soon as you enter the do territory is where I take issue. Jeremy Irons said stupid about the LGBT movement and you don't see me boycotting him. You know why? Because he didn't give any money to an anti-LGBT movement. I fully support free speech; I just give into the Supreme Court's belief that money means free speech.

 

[DrOswald]

This man's job was as CEO of Mozilla, whose main product is Firefox. This browser gets money from Google because it has a sizable userbase. This money gets paid to the people who work for Mozilla Corp. That money was used by Eich to give to anti-LGBT funds. It would make sense, then, that if you don't want money to be given to the guy who's proven that he's supported this type of crowd in the past that you would then stop using this browser.

People have the right to be dicks about their opinions, but the moment they take an active cause against it, no matter if it's a 'private donation,' is the moment that you can take an active cause against them. If it stays as words, who cares? If money changes hands, that's when I do my best to make sure they don't get paid.

Do people really think they were part of some great movement to deny funds to anti-gay organizations? Because if so that's kind of sad. We're talking about $1000 to a specific campaign, as a CEO of a medium tech firm his watch probably costs more. he was hardly the financial underpinning of proposition eight and he's hardly the pillar of the anti LGBT establishment.

Mozilla had a very good attitude towards LBGT people, a company he had been a senior part of for nine years. The word i keep thinking of is petty. This came off really really petty. Like a tantrum. Pick your battles when it comes to these issues, you can't just go full force at everyone who has ever expressed or supported an opinion you disagree with.

Even one cent is enough to make me sway my opinion. No matter how low or how high, money is still money and even one cent that contributes to a cause can be used as a spear. As long as you keep it to words, I couldn't care less about what you say, but as soon as you enter the do territory is where I take issue. Jeremy Irons said stupid about the LGBT movement and you don't see me boycotting him. You know why? Because he didn't give any money to an anti-LGBT movement. I fully support free speech; I just give into the Supreme Court's belief that money means free speech.

What if a person supported a political candidate that was publicly against same sex marriage? What if they paid tithing to a religion? What if they spent $30 in gas driving to a townhouse meeting so they could speak against gay marriage? What if they purchased a $10 sign and put it up on their lawn?

 

[Ratty]

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.

I just have to ask one question. Would you have had this same stance if the donation he'd made was to a campaign to end legal interracial marriage?

He chose to back hateful discriminatory laws. People chose not to use a product which identified itself with him in turn. This is not a "witch hunt" it's the free market.

PS- That is not an absurd or entirely hypothetical question by the way. Until just a few decades ago interracial marriage was illegal in many states. How quickly we forget.

 

[jehk]

This man's job was as CEO of Mozilla, whose main product is Firefox. This browser gets money from Google because it has a sizable userbase. This money gets paid to the people who work for Mozilla Corp. That money was used by Eich to give to anti-LGBT funds. It would make sense, then, that if you don't want money to be given to the guy who's proven that he's supported this type of crowd in the past that you would then stop using this browser.

People have the right to be dicks about their opinions, but the moment they take an active cause against it, no matter if it's a 'private donation,' is the moment that you can take an active cause against them. If it stays as words, who cares? If money changes hands, that's when I do my best to make sure they don't get paid.

Do people really think they were part of some great movement to deny funds to anti-gay organizations? Because if so that's kind of sad. We're talking about $1000 to a specific campaign, as a CEO of a medium tech firm his watch probably costs more. he was hardly the financial underpinning of proposition eight and he's hardly the pillar of the anti LGBT establishment.

Mozilla had a very good attitude towards LBGT people, a company he had been a senior part of for nine years. The word i keep thinking of is petty. This came off really really petty. Like a tantrum. Pick your battles when it comes to these issues, you can't just go full force at everyone who has ever expressed or supported an opinion you disagree with.

Even one cent is enough to make me sway my opinion. No matter how low or how high, money is still money and even one cent that contributes to a cause can be used as a spear. As long as you keep it to words, I couldn't care less about what you say, but as soon as you enter the do territory is where I take issue. Jeremy Irons said stupid about the LGBT movement and you don't see me boycotting him. You know why? Because he didn't give any money to an anti-LGBT movement. I fully support free speech; I just give into the Supreme Court's belief that money means free speech.

What if a person supported a political candidate that was publicly against same sex marriage? What if they paid tithing to a religion? What if they spent $30 in gas driving to a townhouse meeting so they could speak against gay marriage? What if they purchased a $10 sign and put it up on their lawn?

Well, if they provided me with a free Internet browser I wouldn't use it and uninstall if necessary.

 

[jehk]

Then i suppose people will keep thinking these online campaigns are incredibly reactionary and it will keep damaging the good work being done elsewhere. I know the Social Justice Warrior types like to think they are changing the world by shaming one 'biggot' at a time out of their job but really all this has done is give credence to idea that people with truly bigoted beliefs are free speech martyrs.

What? People who understand free speech know this is actually a triumph.

The intentions behind this and the justifications make little difference to how this is viewed; the hounding out of a job of a man by an angry mod who can't find more pressing issues to worry about. Again ,the issue here is push back. It sours people's perception of a pro LGBT campaign and may make many who are naturally sympathetic to these issues not want to associate with them. Just look at this thread, there seem to be many more people denouncing this move than supporting it. It has made a lot of people very uncomfortable. Those who pushed him out of his job overwhelmingly look in the wrong.

Also, the "more pressing issues" is complete bullshit. While I don't live in California a similar proposition was proposed in my state. This proposition would have prevented me from marrying the person I love. That's a pretty pressing issue for me especially when they were in the hospital (nothing serious but still).

 

[DrOswald]

Then i suppose people will keep thinking these online campaigns are incredibly reactionary and it will keep damaging the good work being done elsewhere. I know the Social Justice Warrior types like to think they are changing the world by shaming one 'biggot' at a time out of their job but really all this has done is give credence to idea that people with truly bigoted beliefs are free speech martyrs.

What? People who understand free speech know this is actually a triumph.

A triumph for free speech. "Remember people, anything you ever do or say publicly can come back to destroy you years later." I am sure this is really going to promote the free exchange of ideas.

 

[TheIceQueen]

Even one cent is enough to make me sway my opinion. No matter how low or how high, money is still money and even one cent that contributes to a cause can be used as a spear. As long as you keep it to words, I couldn't care less about what you say, but as soon as you enter the do territory is where I take issue. Jeremy Irons said stupid about the LGBT movement and you don't see me boycotting him. You know why? Because he didn't give any money to an anti-LGBT movement. I fully support free speech; I just give into the Supreme Court's belief that money means free speech.

Then i suppose people will keep thinking these online campaigns are incredibly reactionary and it will keep damaging the good work being done elsewhere. I know the Social Justice Warrior types like to think they are changing the world by shaming one 'biggot' at a time out of their job but really all this has done is give credence to idea that people with truly bigoted beliefs are free speech martyrs.

The intentions behind this and the justifications make little difference to how this is viewed; the hounding out of a job of a man by an angry mod who can't find more pressing issues to worry about. Again ,the issue here is push back. It sours people's perception of a pro LGBT campaign and may make many who are naturally sympathetic to these issues not want to associate with them. Just look at this thread, there seem to be many more people denouncing this move than supporting it. It has made a lot of people very uncomfortable. Those who pushed him out of his job overwhelmingly look in the wrong.

I'm not a very pragmatic person; I'm an idealist. I'm a straight shooter and I handle every issue so as to make sure that no exceptions are made and I'm not going to change my opinion just because you gave ten dollars compared to the ten million dollars or whether there's push back or not. I'm an idealist and I stick to my principles no matter what and that means not financially supporting those who financially support causes that can be used to restrict my rights.

This man's job was as CEO of Mozilla, whose main product is Firefox. This browser gets money from Google because it has a sizable userbase. This money gets paid to the people who work for Mozilla Corp. That money was used by Eich to give to anti-LGBT funds. It would make sense, then, that if you don't want money to be given to the guy who's proven that he's supported this type of crowd in the past that you would then stop using this browser.

People have the right to be dicks about their opinions, but the moment they take an active cause against it, no matter if it's a 'private donation,' is the moment that you can take an active cause against them. If it stays as words, who cares? If money changes hands, that's when I do my best to make sure they don't get paid.

Do people really think they were part of some great movement to deny funds to anti-gay organizations? Because if so that's kind of sad. We're talking about $1000 to a specific campaign, as a CEO of a medium tech firm his watch probably costs more. he was hardly the financial underpinning of proposition eight and he's hardly the pillar of the anti LGBT establishment.

Mozilla had a very good attitude towards LBGT people, a company he had been a senior part of for nine years. The word i keep thinking of is petty. This came off really really petty. Like a tantrum. Pick your battles when it comes to these issues, you can't just go full force at everyone who has ever expressed or supported an opinion you disagree with.

Even one cent is enough to make me sway my opinion. No matter how low or how high, money is still money and even one cent that contributes to a cause can be used as a spear. As long as you keep it to words, I couldn't care less about what you say, but as soon as you enter the do territory is where I take issue. Jeremy Irons said stupid about the LGBT movement and you don't see me boycotting him. You know why? Because he didn't give any money to an anti-LGBT movement. I fully support free speech; I just give into the Supreme Court's belief that money means free speech.

What if a person supported a political candidate that was publicly against same sex marriage?

If they supported them financially, then I'm sure you know my answer. If only vocally, then that's alright by me.

What if they paid tithing to a religion?

Depends on if said church went out campaigning or contributed to an anti-LGBT cause or if they just sat in their pews.

What if they spent $30 in gas driving to a townhouse meeting so they could speak against gay marriage?

Nope, because that money wasn't given in contribution to financially support a group that's trying to restrict human rights.

What if they purchased a $10 sign and put it up on their lawn?

See above answer.

There, that was easy.

 

[Ratty]

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

Your right. It isn't meaningless. It shows that if proponents of traditional marriage want to be able to maintain their religious beliefs they better fight the LGBT movement tooth an nail for every single inch of ground because "live and let live" is clearly not an option.

People seem to forget that marriage is a religious ritual that later received legal regulation. The religion clearly forbids homosexual marriage, that's why the law used to do it as well. When you remove the religious aspect of this rituial, it's merely a formality that grants you tax benefits.

I find it astounding how people believe it's their right to enforce religious rituals they're not allowed to perform because they think they're entitled to and complain when those who practice the religion don't want that because it's clearly forbidden. I could walk into the next mosque and demand to get my feet washed, despite having absolutely no right to, and complain about intolerant muslims because they beat the crap out of me and kick me out just as well.

I support same sex marriage, but this was short sighted and foolish. We made a martyr out of a man because he donated a pittance to a political cause 6 years ago. This will do nothing but promote hatred on both sides. For years the biggest argument conservative leaders have made is "it's us or them" and we just proved that right.

And of course the LGBT community will pretend that only he is to blame and that they're the real victims of their little campaign.

Except that "One man + One woman for the sake of love". Is a pretty modern invention, within the last few hundred years. Across cultures and history there have been many different definitions of "marriage", most of them being primarily buisness arrangements to secure alliances between families and/or exchange property. Just look at the Bible, tons of polygamy and arranged marriages (not to mention incest) going on all over the place in that book. "One Man + One Woman" is not the "Biblical" interpretation, especially if you're considering the man and woman equal partners instead of owner and owned.

The same sections of the Bible used to say "gays shouldn't marry" could be used to say "the woman is the property of her husband" and "eating shellfish or mixing fabrics in your clothing is an abomination". So no, as much as preachers may tell you otherwise, just ask any anthropologist. "Marriage" does not and never has had one set definition.

captcha: "chutzpah", indeed.

 

[jehk]

Then i suppose people will keep thinking these online campaigns are incredibly reactionary and it will keep damaging the good work being done elsewhere. I know the Social Justice Warrior types like to think they are changing the world by shaming one 'biggot' at a time out of their job but really all this has done is give credence to idea that people with truly bigoted beliefs are free speech martyrs.

What? People who understand free speech know this is actually a triumph.

A triumph for free speech. "Remember people, anything you ever do or say publicly can come back to destroy you years later." I am sure this is really going to promote the free exchange of ideas.

Free speech doesn't mean speech that's free from consequence. It definitely doesn't mean others can't speak out against you. Like I said, people who understand free speech...

 

[DrOswald]

This man's job was as CEO of Mozilla, whose main product is Firefox. This browser gets money from Google because it has a sizable userbase. This money gets paid to the people who work for Mozilla Corp. That money was used by Eich to give to anti-LGBT funds. It would make sense, then, that if you don't want money to be given to the guy who's proven that he's supported this type of crowd in the past that you would then stop using this browser.

People have the right to be dicks about their opinions, but the moment they take an active cause against it, no matter if it's a 'private donation,' is the moment that you can take an active cause against them. If it stays as words, who cares? If money changes hands, that's when I do my best to make sure they don't get paid.

Do people really think they were part of some great movement to deny funds to anti-gay organizations? Because if so that's kind of sad. We're talking about $1000 to a specific campaign, as a CEO of a medium tech firm his watch probably costs more. he was hardly the financial underpinning of proposition eight and he's hardly the pillar of the anti LGBT establishment.

Mozilla had a very good attitude towards LBGT people, a company he had been a senior part of for nine years. The word i keep thinking of is petty. This came off really really petty. Like a tantrum. Pick your battles when it comes to these issues, you can't just go full force at everyone who has ever expressed or supported an opinion you disagree with.

Even one cent is enough to make me sway my opinion. No matter how low or how high, money is still money and even one cent that contributes to a cause can be used as a spear. As long as you keep it to words, I couldn't care less about what you say, but as soon as you enter the do territory is where I take issue. Jeremy Irons said stupid about the LGBT movement and you don't see me boycotting him. You know why? Because he didn't give any money to an anti-LGBT movement. I fully support free speech; I just give into the Supreme Court's belief that money means free speech.

What if a person supported a political candidate that was publicly against same sex marriage?

If they supported them financially, then I'm sure you know my answer. If only vocally, then that's alright by me.

Do you know anyone who donated to Obama's canidcy during the 2008 election? By your logic they should all be hounded as well. Don't forget that he ran on a platform of anti gay marriage during his first election campaign.

 

[DrOswald]

Then i suppose people will keep thinking these online campaigns are incredibly reactionary and it will keep damaging the good work being done elsewhere. I know the Social Justice Warrior types like to think they are changing the world by shaming one 'biggot' at a time out of their job but really all this has done is give credence to idea that people with truly bigoted beliefs are free speech martyrs.

What? People who understand free speech know this is actually a triumph.

A triumph for free speech. "Remember people, anything you ever do or say publicly can come back to destroy you years later." I am sure this is really going to promote the free exchange of ideas.

Free speech doesn't mean speech that's free from consequence. It definitely doesn't mean others can't speak out against you. Like I said, people who understand free speech...

And I am saying that episodes like this damage any chance we have of a productive dialog. Not just for this issue, but for every issue going forward. Legal free speech doesn't mean a damn thing if people have to fear mob justice.

 

[TheIceQueen]

This man's job was as CEO of Mozilla, whose main product is Firefox. This browser gets money from Google because it has a sizable userbase. This money gets paid to the people who work for Mozilla Corp. That money was used by Eich to give to anti-LGBT funds. It would make sense, then, that if you don't want money to be given to the guy who's proven that he's supported this type of crowd in the past that you would then stop using this browser.

People have the right to be dicks about their opinions, but the moment they take an active cause against it, no matter if it's a 'private donation,' is the moment that you can take an active cause against them. If it stays as words, who cares? If money changes hands, that's when I do my best to make sure they don't get paid.

Do people really think they were part of some great movement to deny funds to anti-gay organizations? Because if so that's kind of sad. We're talking about $1000 to a specific campaign, as a CEO of a medium tech firm his watch probably costs more. he was hardly the financial underpinning of proposition eight and he's hardly the pillar of the anti LGBT establishment.

Mozilla had a very good attitude towards LBGT people, a company he had been a senior part of for nine years. The word i keep thinking of is petty. This came off really really petty. Like a tantrum. Pick your battles when it comes to these issues, you can't just go full force at everyone who has ever expressed or supported an opinion you disagree with.

Even one cent is enough to make me sway my opinion. No matter how low or how high, money is still money and even one cent that contributes to a cause can be used as a spear. As long as you keep it to words, I couldn't care less about what you say, but as soon as you enter the do territory is where I take issue. Jeremy Irons said stupid about the LGBT movement and you don't see me boycotting him. You know why? Because he didn't give any money to an anti-LGBT movement. I fully support free speech; I just give into the Supreme Court's belief that money means free speech.

What if a person supported a political candidate that was publicly against same sex marriage?

If they supported them financially, then I'm sure you know my answer. If only vocally, then that's alright by me.

Do you know anyone who donated to Obama's canidcy during the 2008 election? By your logic they should all be hounded as well. Don't forget that he ran on a platform of anti gay marriage during his first election campaign.

I'd be more than happy to hound them because you've no idea how much I dislike Obama.