Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
It's good to know that anything someone says or does can be held against them whenever the mainstream public opinion shifts, regardless of how legal their speech/actions were.
You realize that limited effort is why we don't all just go after the big things right? Right?MCerberus said:
EDIT: What's the point of saying such a thing? To be shitty to people trying to help in small ways? Lots of people do what they can to achieve social change. Some in small doses. Others in larger doses.
Conflicted about this. On one hand, the political position of the man in charge is certainly a fair reason to stop using a product. People have done worse over less. And it's certainly fair for managers to be pressured out of a job if they cause their company bad PR.*
On the other hand, knowing the Internet, chances are people got truly offensive over this. It's difficult to tell, but I'd hazard a guess that this man and his company got a tremendously large amount of hate mail over the past few days. And not only was that not going to win anyone over to the LGBT side's way of thinking, it was probably disproportionate to the man's actions.
So yeah.
Edit: *I mean, we all celebrated when Ricitiello left EA. Or when Adam Orth was kicked out of Microsoft following a few obnoxious tweets.
On the other hand, knowing the Internet, chances are people got truly offensive over this. It's difficult to tell, but I'd hazard a guess that this man and his company got a tremendously large amount of hate mail over the past few days. And not only was that not going to win anyone over to the LGBT side's way of thinking, it was probably disproportionate to the man's actions.
So yeah.
Edit: *I mean, we all celebrated when Ricitiello left EA. Or when Adam Orth was kicked out of Microsoft following a few obnoxious tweets.
Yes, it is. Because freedom of speech does not mean "freedom from criticism". Otherwise we would not be able to criticize anyone ever. "Here's a guy saying we should eat babies, I would say he's crazy and that I think his idea is disgusting but, freedom of speech." "Those Neo-Nazis are protesting my not being burned to death again. I would disagree with their message but, freedom of speech." Yeah that's not how it works.Genocidicles said:
If you run a restaurant and then go to KKK meetings, which you have every legal right to do[footnote]Assuming you don't make terroristic threats against anyone as part of said meeting. Something the KKK has a long history of doing.[/footnote], don't complain about your "freedom of speech" being violated when no one but other white supremacists want to eat at your restaurant.
You didn't spend a large sum of money trying to push your personal beliefs on the entire state. That's the main difference that people keep forgetting. If he had changed his mind and made it public that he wasn't going to spend money on it anymore, then this would be a non-issue. Because he never made that move, I'm happy that he's stepped down from being the head of a company that I rather like.frizzlebyte said:
I love all the people trying to take the super cool counter-culture position by defending bigotry through mental gymnastics because they just hate Tumblr so much.
A rich guy can't have a meaningless position because he helped set progress back. Oh no. Surely our entire society is now a sham.
A rich guy can't have a meaningless position because he helped set progress back. Oh no. Surely our entire society is now a sham.
Not really. Just arguing this isn't the best way to go about it. I agree, I simply don't see how this advances gay rights at all, seeing as Mozilla never was anti-gay to begin with, and Eich isn't really going to feel the hurt, either, not with his CV (so yeah, people doing the "destroyed his career" rhetoric are kinda lacking perspective here).RaikuFA said:
Wait, he's still donating? From what I gathered from all the news here, that only happened once. I'm sorry, if it's so, of course that changes things. I was under the impresstion that this was a one-time thing, that's why it baffles me why people are only going after him 6 years after the act. But if the act's still repeating, well, then I can understand it.RaikuFA said:
I'm sure it's very likely he's not changed his beliefs, but...come on, you know that's not the only thing that could have happened had he actually changed them.
But don't you know, if we don't give money to people who try to have us treated unfairly, then it's like we're tumblr users. Which is now a bad thing apparently?RaikuFA said:
The whole negative use of the term "social justice warrior" reeks of being so content with the status quo and one's own, yes, PRIVILEGE in that system that it's just another way of telling anyone who isn't happy with the way things are to "sit down and shut up because I've got mine".
It would have been a standard PR move. He apparently felt so strongly that gays should not have the same equal treatment under the law that he'd rather find another job than even give a token effort to reach out to the LGBT community in a positive way.Vegosiux said:
So it didn't bother you when he was the co-founder, chief architect, lead technologist, board member or CTO of a company you rather like?Alcaste said:
Ugh! I cannot believe the sheer amount of reverse-victim crap in the first page alone. I am so sick of this trope that I hate it with a psychotic and otherwise unhealthy passion.
As others stated already, Eich didn't just espouse bad views. He gave material support to pass a law intended to deny LGBT rights. He deserves to have that haunt him. Nit-picking over how long ago it happened is just an excuse to have your cake and eat it too.
For Mozilla to give such a man a high-ranking high-profile responsibility is something they deserved to be shamed for. They should've known better in the first place. I mean, whats their excuse? That they didn't know? That they didn't do some frigging background research on the guy before putting him in charge? Come on!
To those who ask "what did this accomplish?" I ask: do you think LGBTs have equal rights today? Do you think cultural attitudes change overnight? Is there a magic wand to solve these problems with just one wave? Or are these things changed over time? Do such long-term changes occur in a vacuum with everyone involved complacently accepting the status quo until it magically disappears? Or are these changes the result of a momentum built on the many smaller but hard-won battles?
That someone can be successfully shamed for hating on LGBTs is a sign that we're going in the right direction. To turn that around and say thats reason to not shame them is to rationalize allowing bigots to get away with their prejudice. Screw that.
To those who call LGBTs petty over this, I ask: would you call black people petty for demanding someone who supported racial segregation to step down? In principle, its the same thing.
**edit** To those who say "he was instrumental to Mozilla in the past, so why let it bother us now?" I ask: if you found out your co-worker Dexter was actually the Bay Harbor Butcher, would you say we should forgive him because we didn't care before? Of course not! We didn't know before. We're not omniscient. Somebody had to bring it to people's attention. With the blinding ignorance lifted, good folks proceeded to correct a mistake. **edit**
To those who claim that this will only feed the delusion of bigots who claim they're the real victims, I ask: how do you not fuel those delusions? Are we or are we not talking about the same atavistic religious whack-a-loons who think verbally acknowledging other religions during the holidays is an attack upon their own faith? The same faith-based control freaks who claim that making corporations pay for employee health insurance that covers contraceptives violates their religious freedom, nevermind the religious freedom of their employees, nor that nobody forced these rich douches to own and operate these companies in the first place? Are these the kind of people we're talking about or not?
These are the folks who honestly believe that persecuting others = their moral duty. And not always getting their way every single time = being persecuted. How do you propose to appease and/or outwit people that delusional? --Spoiler alert!-- You can't! And if it were possible, I'd still rather confront them head on. To reiterate, I am sick to death of this reverse-victim trope.
On that note, I'll flat out say this: I'm happy Eich stepped-down over this. I'm freaking glad Mozilla was shamed for overlooking his past. And I don't feel the least bit conflicted about it. Anyone who says he didn't deserve it is either a contrarian for contrary's sake or a closet-bigot grasping at straws to avoid admitting that they just hate teh gheys.
As others stated already, Eich didn't just espouse bad views. He gave material support to pass a law intended to deny LGBT rights. He deserves to have that haunt him. Nit-picking over how long ago it happened is just an excuse to have your cake and eat it too.
For Mozilla to give such a man a high-ranking high-profile responsibility is something they deserved to be shamed for. They should've known better in the first place. I mean, whats their excuse? That they didn't know? That they didn't do some frigging background research on the guy before putting him in charge? Come on!
To those who ask "what did this accomplish?" I ask: do you think LGBTs have equal rights today? Do you think cultural attitudes change overnight? Is there a magic wand to solve these problems with just one wave? Or are these things changed over time? Do such long-term changes occur in a vacuum with everyone involved complacently accepting the status quo until it magically disappears? Or are these changes the result of a momentum built on the many smaller but hard-won battles?
That someone can be successfully shamed for hating on LGBTs is a sign that we're going in the right direction. To turn that around and say thats reason to not shame them is to rationalize allowing bigots to get away with their prejudice. Screw that.
To those who call LGBTs petty over this, I ask: would you call black people petty for demanding someone who supported racial segregation to step down? In principle, its the same thing.
**edit** To those who say "he was instrumental to Mozilla in the past, so why let it bother us now?" I ask: if you found out your co-worker Dexter was actually the Bay Harbor Butcher, would you say we should forgive him because we didn't care before? Of course not! We didn't know before. We're not omniscient. Somebody had to bring it to people's attention. With the blinding ignorance lifted, good folks proceeded to correct a mistake. **edit**
To those who claim that this will only feed the delusion of bigots who claim they're the real victims, I ask: how do you not fuel those delusions? Are we or are we not talking about the same atavistic religious whack-a-loons who think verbally acknowledging other religions during the holidays is an attack upon their own faith? The same faith-based control freaks who claim that making corporations pay for employee health insurance that covers contraceptives violates their religious freedom, nevermind the religious freedom of their employees, nor that nobody forced these rich douches to own and operate these companies in the first place? Are these the kind of people we're talking about or not?
These are the folks who honestly believe that persecuting others = their moral duty. And not always getting their way every single time = being persecuted. How do you propose to appease and/or outwit people that delusional? --Spoiler alert!-- You can't! And if it were possible, I'd still rather confront them head on. To reiterate, I am sick to death of this reverse-victim trope.
On that note, I'll flat out say this: I'm happy Eich stepped-down over this. I'm freaking glad Mozilla was shamed for overlooking his past. And I don't feel the least bit conflicted about it. Anyone who says he didn't deserve it is either a contrarian for contrary's sake or a closet-bigot grasping at straws to avoid admitting that they just hate teh gheys.
The vast majority of the conservative community is not trying to oppress homosexuals, they are trying to protect their beliefs. They are trying to prevent a situation of social discrimination against their beliefs. I know this is really hard for you to see because this issue effects you personally, but traditional marriage is not an issue of hating and oppressing homosexuality to the vast majority of the other side. It is an issue of religion. And they just don't see anyway to protect their beliefs that doesn't effect you. Because they were told that when the LGBT community gains social power they will use it to attack anyone with views they do not approve of.jehk said:
And guess what is happening now. The LGBT community has power, and what is done with that power? An attack on a man who's only crime was a modest donation 6 years ago. He has never even publicly spoken out against the LGBT community. Brendan Eich was no threat to the LGBT community. He only became a threat as a martyr.
The past 6 years have seen huge strides on the conservative side towards the idea of "live and let live". The vast majority believed that if equal rights were given to the LGBT community, if they were social equals, then they would not attack individuals or groups based on opposing religious beliefs. I have personally seen dozens of people reverse their position on proposition 8 over the last 6 years. So much of that progress has been destroyed in the last few days.
Everyone on the other side has had their worst fears confirmed. "Live and let live" is clearly not an option. Anyone who ever publicly supported something like prop 8 is at risk. They better fight tooth an nail for every last inch of ground, because when our side has the power we will use it to force them to renounce their beliefs. If nothing else, this was a massive strategic error that is going to put back the fight for LGBT rights. Expect a renewed and fierce effort to prevent LGBT rights and LGBT social acceptance.
As for what I expect you to do, I expected you to do what you did. What I hoped you would do is try to break the cycle of hatred. I know that isn't a fair thing to ask. An eye for an eye would be fair. Revenge would be fair. And for what it is worth, I am sorry that it falls on your shoulders to be the better man.
Religious conservatives do not own marriage. Marriage has had many forms in many cultures and under many religions all throughout history. And in America, marriage is a secular legal contract. That is what is at stake here, not some nebulous religious concept.DrOswald said:
Whether the religious conservatives view what they are doing as oppression or not, it is oppression. They are trying to force other people who don't share their beliefs to adhere to them by making sure they do not have equal rights under the law. A gay person being able to marry in no way interferes with a straight person's right to marry. Or a Church's right to discriminate against whoever they choose for whatever reason.
For example http://abcnews.go.com/US/kentucky-church-bans-interracial-couples/story?id=15065204 that is one of the many reasons separation of Church and State is important. Not only does it insure equal rights for people of all beliefs under the secular law, it ensures the Church's right to discriminate as it sees fit.
"a modest donation" to try and limit people's freedom. I ask again in this thread, what if this man had donated to have interracial marriage made illegal, as it was in many states just a few decades ago? This is a guy who tried to violate millions of people's fundamental right to be treated equally under the law. It doesn't matter if it was LGBTs or any other group, that is and should be a shameful act that he should be held accountable for.DrOswald said:
How is he martyred? People didn't want to support the man who tried to take away their rights. So he's still a millionaire who now takes a vacation while he looks for another job. I fail to see the "martyr" in that for anyone except those already convinced of the position that LGBTs are bad.DrOswald said:
How?DrOswald said:
Really? All I expect to see this do is give another excuse to the people who already decided long ago that LGBTs were evil. These are the people who have and will continue to try and block progress, and would have with or without this incident.DrOswald said:
That's not exactly how progress works. It's going to be generational. We're about where equal rights for blacks were in the 1960s right now. A lot of the support for LGBT rights comes from the younger generations. Basically we're all going to have to die and our grandchildren grow up before being LGBT is fully "normal". Because there are too many people alive right now who have grown up being indoctrinated to hate LGBTs and who will take that hatred to their graves.DrOswald said:
He has essentially spent money to try and keep me from being able to marry the person I love. Even though neither of us have ever done anything to him. If this man had his way we and millions of others like us would never have the same rights, protections and privileges under the law that straight couples take for granted every day. So barring an apology no, nothing he did would make him "okay" in my eyes.Vegosiux said: