Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[The Grim Ace]

Yep, great news everybody, intolerance got a point! Because if you have an unpopular opinion, one that ended up losing in the long run, just your being employed is a travesty. Never mind his accomplishments and history at Mozilla, nope, you've committed thought crime.

And before the accusations come, I'm 100% in favor of gay marriage -- it's not my business to dictate how marriage works and, just because it's not for me, doesn't mean it shouldn't be a thing.

 

[Xariat]

I once heard a great story which I'm often reminded of in cases like this. A mother finds her two children fighting over a cake. Billy wants the whole cake but Suzie thinks they should share it equally. "Now, now", says the mother. "You should compromise. Billy can get three quarters and Suzie can get one quarter".

Except the solution made to this fight is more like:
Suzie gets nothing and Billy has to go live in the garage.

good job you solved that one well.

Captcha: "Treat yo self"
yeah change has to come from the inside, a circle of oppression and discrimination isn't going to help the equality issue in the long run.

 

[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...

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.

This is a productive dialogue. How do you think these things work? Brendan Eich said "I supported prop 8" then I said "I'm not supporting Mozilla." What you call mod justice is me exercising my free speech.

 

[jehk]

snip

Just so you know the US constitution limits rights. It doesn't grant them. That's why the first amendment is worded the way it is. So long as I don't violate some other part then demonizing someone for their opinion is totally within the bounds of the first amendment. Choosing not to support Mozzila is definitely within bounds.

 

[The Material Sheep]

snip

Just so you know the US constitution limits rights. It doesn't grant them. That's why the first amendment is worded the way it is. So long as I don't violate some other part then demonizing someone for their opinion is totally within the bounds of the first amendment. Choosing not to support Mozzila is definitely within bounds.

Well this isn't an issue of free speech. You are free to boycott Mozilla, just as much as he was free to give that money to the idiots who thought up prop 8. The fact that this guy was mobbed over it, and another company decided to make this stuff public, is just poor form. In both situations I believe the actions are wrong and disagreeable, but no way no protected by freedom of speech. Your free to give money to stupid movements getting hung up/paranoid over the definition of a word, and do overly sensitive reactionary boycotts all you want. Whether they are reasonable things to do, is debatable.

I suppose that was initially a straw man to begin with though.

 

[Andrew_C]

What I want to know is when is he going to apologise for inflicting Javascript on us. That's the real issue here.

 

[jehk]

What I want to know is when is he going to apologise for inflicting Javascript on us. That's the real issue here.

Now that is a true human rights violation.

 

[Cecilo]

We've reached the stage where being (publicly) homophobic makes your job untenable. Considering how recently it would have been that being (publicly) homosexual would have the same effect, I think that's progress.

It's flown from one extreme to the other. Neither of them is good.

The fact that this is regarded as "progress" is an absolute disgrace and should be thrown in the face of anybody who claims that their movement is about "equality".

No, I disagree. Tolerance and intolerance are not two extremes, and intolerance *of* intolerance is not the same as intolerance of diversity.

I once heard a great story which I'm often reminded of in cases like this. A mother finds her two children fighting over a cake. Billy wants the whole cake but Suzie thinks they should share it equally. "Now, now", says the mother. "You should compromise. Billy can get three quarters and Suzie can get one quarter".

You can't 'compromise' between inequality and equality. Equality is equality. A belief in equality means that someone who supports inequality is wrong. That's the liberal paradox - it's the same problem as the cultural diversity dilemma: if a different culture supports a practice we find barbaric such as FGM, who are we to oppose them? Aren't their views just as valid as ours? Well - no. Because ours come from a position of equality and theirs come from a position of inequality.

Even writing this makes me uncomfortable. It feels weird to say dogmatic things. But the logic of the position is pretty inescapable.

But that is one of the things Feminists and LGBT believe in, Benevolent Sexism/Racism, Basically "You had Three shares and I had One shares at some point in the past, so now I will take three shares and you will take one share"

Now you are going "Well, this person doesn't believe in what we believe in, WE MUST DESTROY HIM". Figured you'd want to maybe not do what the people who hated you tried to do to you, but I guess that was to much to expect, petty revenge wins out in the end I guess.

 

[MCerberus]

Well according to the Supreme Court he *vomits a little remembering the majority opinion* was doing something 100% equal to spreading his beliefs in person by giving money.

But yah, if you want to boycott a company for being politically abhorrent and ruining society, Koch industries is still a thing. Not buying Dixie cups is a better way to take a stand against that sort of stuff.

 

[jehk]

snip

Just so you know the US constitution limits rights. It doesn't grant them. That's why the first amendment is worded the way it is. So long as I don't violate some other part then demonizing someone for their opinion is totally within the bounds of the first amendment. Choosing not to support Mozzila is definitely within bounds.

Well this isn't an issue of free speech. You are free to boycott Mozilla, just as much as he was free to give that money to the idiots who thought up prop 8. The fact that this guy was mobbed over it, and another company decided to make this stuff public, is just poor form. In both situations I believe the actions are wrong and disagreeable, but no way no protected by freedom of speech. Your free to give money to stupid movements getting hung up/paranoid over the definition of a word, and do overly sensitive reactionary boycotts all you want. Whether they are reasonable things to do, is debatable.

I suppose that was initially a straw man to begin with though.

Taking the 3 or 4 minutes to uninstall Firefox then install Chrome seems like a pretty reasonable boycott to me.

I'm glad OKCupid did this. I consider it a service. I do not want to associate with someone who contributed to limiting my rights. I dread to think how things would have gone in my state if prop 8 passed in California. But who cares about the actual harm being done. We have our image on the Internet right?

 

[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.

This is a productive dialogue. How do you think these things work? Brendan Eich said "I supported prop 8" then I said "I'm not supporting Mozilla." What you call mod justice is me exercising my free speech.

Brendan Eich lost his job over an expression of free speech. This is the problem here. I am not talking about legal rights, I am talking about respecting the power of free speech. This was mob justice - thousands of people called for Brendan Eich's career to be destroyed for something he said 6 years ago and that is what happened. I do not deny that you were well within your rights to do what you did. It was just a shortsighted and foolish thing to do.

50 years ago publicly supporting homosexuality would get you blacklisted. Your livelihood was destroyed and your life could even be threatened. Because everybody knew that homosexuality was wrong and evil and that anyone who supported it was evil too. They deserved to be hated and ostracized for their incorrect and evil views.

Imagine how much faster we could have gotten to the point we are at now if people did not have to fear retribution for expressing an idea that was contrary to the social norm. Imagine what social strides we could make over the next 50 years if we don't have to gag ourselves to protect our jobs.

When we start socially attacking people for peacefully expressing an idea we do not approve of we open the gates for discrimination and shut down social progress. This is why it must be safe to peacefully express even wrong ideas. 50 years ago people used the same logic you are using now to blacklist homosexual individuals and prevent progress towards LGBT rights. If allowed to survive, this logic will again be used in the future to block other worthy causes. Right now this logic is deepening a divide of hatred between the LGBT community and the conservative community. This is not good. It is not a triumph.

 

[jehk]

Well according to the Supreme Court he *vomits a little remembering the majority opinion* was doing something 100% equal to spreading his beliefs in person by giving money.

But yah, if you want to boycott a company for being politically abhorrent and ruining society, Koch industries is still a thing. Not buying Dixie cups is a better way to take a stand against that sort of stuff.

We can do both. Ya' know? Or some people can work on LGBT issues and some people can work against Koch industries. Watch out. I'm full of crazy ideas today.

Sorry, I really dislike the "bigger issues" excuse. So easy to rip that fallacy apart.

 

[Savryc]

Maybe I don't frequent the same internet circles as some of my fellow Escapists, but all I heard of was OKCupids "please consider a different browser thing". I'm hard pressed to see that as hounding or mobbing, it's not like they denied access either, you could click past the message on Firefox.

But I'll take the message here to heart, if a company hires/promotes/whatevers a CEO who holds views I don't agree with I'll just force myself to use their product and give them my money anyway. God forbid I exercise my right as a consumer to choose what product I do or don't use, wouldn't want to be discriminatory now would I?

Edit: I suppose it's worth mentioning that I never used Firefox to begin with.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

Good job, people. You've got got rid of someone who helped further free software and fight back at corporate control of the software industry because his political views from years ago offended you. Why didn't you complain back then when he was just the cofounder and CTO? Regardless of whether he's CEO or not he wasn't going to make Firefox explode your computer if you are homosexual. His political views weren't going to win in today's world anyway.

He'll probably go back to a position somewhere in the Mozilla Foundation or go to another well paying position in a company that doesn't care. And all you did was remind the business world to keep quiet about tense subjects like gay rights and not to support any cause publicly. Have fun when something else serious bites us all in the ass and we have no one but the politicians who don't actually care since they got all the campaign money and both sides have equally scathing issues they support.

 

[gagagaga]

I find it hard to believe that he actually got enough pressure from the LGBT community to convince him to step down.

It doesn't seem to be the sole reason he stepped down either, so -shrug-. I dunno.

 

[Ratty]

free speech?

you...... you realize what free speech is, right?
I'm guessing you are referring to the First Amendment

here, let me fucking enlighten you:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

it.

says.

nothing.

about.

demonizing.

people.

for.

their.

opinions.

Because the Founding Fathers never demonized the loyalists or the British Government for "their opinions"?

so, no, for the people that "understand free speech", this is not a triumph, it is disgraceful to even use "free speech" in the same thread about this.

the LGBT community basically did the exact opposite of free speech and oppressed a persons own views.

No one's views were "oppressed", the free market worked. If Micheal Vick comes out and supports a brand of pet food, Vick and the pet food company aren't being "oppressed" when people choose not to buy their product.

this is coming from a person that used to support gay rights, you dont fight for equality by throwing a hissy fit and demanding blood because someone donated $1000 to something you didn't like.

You "used to support gay rights" until some LGBT people and allies did something you didn't like. These people stopped supporting a product because it was associating itself with someone who has tried to take away their fundamental right to equal treatment under the law. Not just "something they didn't like"

what about everyone else that donated to Prop 8?

when are you going after them?

Again, "going after" is an inaccurate, not to mention melodramatic, way to frame this.

I mean, you are going to have to, or else people are going to call you out as arm chair social justice warriors that wank off to their unwarranted self importance because they got a guy to quit his job using mob tactics.

Since when is voting with your wallet "mob tactics"? That's free market capitalism. I should think this man, a CEO of all people, should understand and respect it.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

What I want to know is when is he going to apologise for inflicting Javascript on us. That's the real issue here.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh my sides. Thank you for this.

OP: I... You know what? I'll keep this short.

What he did privately should not affect his employment. If you disagree, then maybe you should pressure OK Cupid to ask for the removal of the politicians who crafted Prop 8 in the first place. Now what you've done is given him a reason to work for a company like Chick fil-A that actively hates gay marriage and donate thousands to anti gay legislation.


Aren't ya proud guys?

 

[jehk]

Brendan Eich lost his job over an expression of free speech. This is the problem here. I am not talking about legal rights, I am talking about respecting the power of free speech. This was mob justice - thousands of people called for Brendan Eich's career to be destroyed for something he said 6 years ago and that is what happened. I do not deny that you were well within your rights to do what you did. It was just a shortsighted and foolish thing to do.

So what is someone like me supposed to do? Continue using Mozilla? Are you seriously asking me to support someone who tried to limit my rights? And I mean limiting them in a very real way that would have a big impact on my life? Seriously?

No fucking way.

I'm going to stop using Mozilla and tell people about this for the same reason OkCupid did. Because people do not want to support this in any way.

When we start socially attacking people for peacefully expressing an idea we do not approve of we open the gates for discrimination and shut down social progress. This is why it must be safe to peacefully express even wrong ideas. 50 years ago people used the same logic you are using now to blacklist homosexual individuals and prevent progress towards LGBT rights. If allowed to survive, this logic will again be used in the future to block other worthy causes. Right now this logic is deepening a divide of hatred between the LGBT community and the conservative community. This is not good. It is not a triumph.

How do you expect people to react when they are having their rights taken away (or attempted to have them taken away)? If the conservative community was just peacefully expressing ideas I'd have no problem. They aren't. They are trying to oppress.

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

I dread to think how things would have gone in my state if prop 8 passed in California.

But Prop 8 did pass. It was voted into law by a 52% majority of California's voters.

It was later struck down by the District Court of Northern California, which is a state court. The federal appeals courts didn't hear the appeal due to technical issues of standing. Meaning, Prop 8's success or failure establishes no legal precedent in your state. Your state will do what it likes, regardless of what happens in California.

 

[MCerberus]

Well according to the Supreme Court he *vomits a little remembering the majority opinion* was doing something 100% equal to spreading his beliefs in person by giving money.

But yah, if you want to boycott a company for being politically abhorrent and ruining society, Koch industries is still a thing. Not buying Dixie cups is a better way to take a stand against that sort of stuff.

We can do both. Ya' know? Or some people can work on LGBT issues and some people can work against Koch industries. Watch out. I'm full of crazy ideas today.

Sorry, I really dislike the "bigger issues" excuse. So easy to rip that fallacy apart.

It's only a fallacy if you have unlimited effort to put towards politics, and there's a difference in methodology. Mostly I don't like the social media "yell loudly" crowd because SJW arguments just so easily turn inward and hypocritical.