Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[Cecilo]

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.

You realize that limited effort is why we don't all just go after the big things right? Right?

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.

You talk like the LGBT have achieved something here, all you have done is set a precedent that is acceptable to bully people based on popular opinion, I really hope none of you have something you value in the future that isn't popular.

The guy supported taking away rights from people like me. You think that has nothing to do with it? That people were just doing it because it was cool?

Popular =/= Cool, It is an issue an increasing amount of people favor now, but the public is fickle, and one day they can be with you and the next you could be on your own. For example, years ago Homosexuality would have been a Taboo topic, not brought up, the majority of people didn't want anything to do with it, and suppressing Gays was acceptable, clearly that is not acceptable now. Had this man contributed to a campaign that was pro-homosexuals 50-70 years ago he would have been in the same position now, told to step down, or stepping down on his own.

Worse still, this happened six years ago, it was dredged up, and it still cost him his job, for nothing more than having the current unpopular opinion.

I worry about things like this, because it is very likely 30-40 years down the line you, or I, or any of us could be the ones who have the unpopular opinion, many people would like to think they will always be the champions of progress, but you forget that our fathers and grandfathers were more than likely their champions of progress, Black Rights, Women Rights, Minority Rights, all progressive for their time. But now they are the villains, we will be the villains too, and I damn well sure want you and I and everyone else to have the right to have a personal opinion and not be attacked for it, to not lose our jobs for it, to not be vilified and torn down for it. Not only is what you did to this man wrong, it is SHORT SIGHTED.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Wow. Well. Ok.

That's sort of disappointing actually. I'd rather people were allowed to have whatever opinions they like and still be able to have a job that they earn on their merits but I suppose that's not how the world works.

 

[Vegosiux]

He has essentially spent money to try and keep me from being able to marrying the person I love. Even though neither of us have ever done anything to him. And if this man had his way millions of others like us would never have the same rights, protections and privileges under the law that straight couples take for granted either. Like being able to see my spouse in the hospital if they have an accident and it's an emergency. So barring an apology no, nothing he did would make him "okay" in my eyes.

So basically, you have it in for this guy whether he steps down or not. That's fair. But in that case it's a bit odd to criticize him for doing either. And, as infuriating as it might be, he doesn't owe it to you to change his stance. Just like you don't owe it to him to "turn yourself straight".

So, yeah. Dislike him as much as you want (I know I wouldn't include him on my party list), but somehow this looks to me as if people just decided that this guy is now a symbol of the "anti-gay community" (for the lack of a better expression), and that by making life difficult for him, we're somehow making progress. I simply...don't think that's the case.

As I said, with his CV, he's not likely to feel the hurt at all, the "message" that was sent here is just that "If you oppose gay rights, be quiet, and you'll have no problems".

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

**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 corrected a mistake. **edit**

This has never been some secret. The donor list for Prop 8 has been public for years - California law requires the disclosure of the personal information of people who donate more than $100 in reference to a ballot measure (whether for or against). That has, incidentally, resulted in forms of harassment [http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?id=6479861] against Prop 8 supporters.

"We weren't paying attention until the Internet Lynch Mobs told us who we were supposed to hate" is not exactly a compelling moral argument for action. This man has worked at Mozilla in extremely important capacities well after his donation to Prop 8. There is zero evidence that he was motivated by any kind of anti-gay sentiment. There was no danger he was going to change the gay-friendly policies at Mozilla - he declared [https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/] that he wouldn't, and it's highly doubtful the board would permit it even if he had wanted to try. He is not in an industry that has any direct bearing on gay rights, and to the extent it does (see aforementioned gay-friendly workplace policies) his company was on the side of the angels.

Brendan Eich was no threat. To display his head on a metaphorical pike is both grotesque and counterproductive.

 

[William Dickbringer]

I'm actually curious if he decided to leave as part of his choice or if the company asked him to back down because if it was the former then it just means that they lost a CEO who had the company's best interests in mind and a shame to lose. Yeah, some shitty views on politics, but it's not like he would fire gay people that worked at mozillia and until that document comes out then I'm just shrugging my shoulder and said it was worthless.

**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**

murder is a whole different ballpark if he was actively making speeches about how the gays shouldn't be allowed to married or fired gays for being gay then I'd be all for it. But, from what I read about him he never let politics in the workplace, he never discussed it with anyone outside the privacy of home, and never reversed any standard lgtb practices in his workplace. This did about as much for the lgtb community as Fred Phelp's death.

 

[Ratty]

So basically, you have it in for this guy whether he steps down or not. That's fair. But in that case it's a bit odd to criticize him for doing either. And, as infuriating as it might be, he doesn't owe it to you to change his stance. Just like you don't owe it to him to "turn yourself straight".

Right, and just like I don't owe it to him or any company he runs to support said company.

So, yeah. Dislike him as much as you want (I know I wouldn't include him on my party list), but somehow this looks to me as if people just decided that this guy is now a symbol of the "anti-gay community" (for the lack of a better expression), and that by making life difficult for him, we're somehow making progress. I simply...don't think that's the case.

As I said, with his CV, he's not likely to feel the hurt at all, the "message" that was sent here is just that "If you oppose gay rights, be quiet, and you'll have no problems".

I would say it's more like "if you're an open bigot, people will call you on it". See my earlier example of the open KKK member who runs a restaurant and is shocked to find that only other white supremacists want to eat there. Or the pet food company that is indignant upon finding people refuse to buy their product after they hire Micheal Vick.

 

[jehk]

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.

Ug. This. They are chasing a boogeyman and its disgusting. No one gets to practice their religion at the cost of anyone else's rights.

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.

What attack? Was he harmed? His property damaged? Did he at least get threatening emails? Make sure you site sources on this please. Nothing? Oh, OKCupid posted a message on their website. Good point. That's just like mob justice [http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ugandan-man-burned-death-being-gay-1438423].

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.

Good? Has Brendan Eich changed his views? No? Hrmm.

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.

I'm glad they are at risk. I'm want bigotry out in the open. I do not want to support such people. And no, not supporting someone isn't the same as forcing someone to renounce their beliefs.

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.

So uninstalling Firefox is part of the cycle of revenge and hatred. What a persecution complex conservatives have. I'm going to speak against and boycott such bigots so long as they try to take away my rights. There is no revenge. No hatred.

 

[EiMitch]

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.

...by discriminating against homosexuals. This is that reverse victim crap I was just talking about.

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.

So were witch hunts.

And they just don't see anyway to protect their beliefs that doesn't effect you.

That same rationale can be used to ban interfaith or even interracial marriage. That they're too ignorant to see that allowing same-sex marriages to happen won't affect heterosexual marriages is their problem.

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.

And no other bigots ever feared the groups they oppressed would seek revenge someday? Its called "paranoia." Its another form of the reverse-victim delusion. Besides, don't these conservative hypocrites write laws that allow "religious based" bullying in school with the precise intent to leave LGBT students unprotected?

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.

Which contributed to LGBTs losing some of their rights. Getting the guy fired is a far cry from denying him his basic civil rights. But if you still want to classify that as "revenge" then point taken. **edit** I take that back. Having thought it over again, "revenge" in this context is little more than hyperbole. But...

He has never even publicly spoken out against the LGBT community.

Bigotry doesn't count if its all actions and no words? Thats pretty thin.

Brendan Eich was no threat to the LGBT community. He only became a threat as a martyr.

So once the axis powers were defeated in WW2, they were no longer a threat and we shouldn't have punished them with war-crime trials in Nuremberg? Don't give me that look. The difference is only a matter of degree.

Besides, if Eich is a "martyr" for losing a job, then what do you call the slain victims of hate-crimes? Its going to take alot more than unemployment for me to feel sorry for someone who helped feed a culture of hate.

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.

"Destroyed" my ass. If anything this proves we made progress. Otherwise, Eich wouldn't have felt pressured to step down.

Everyone on the other side has had their worst fears confirmed. "Live and let live" is clearly not an option.

For conservatives, it never was. See my post above for details.

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.

Why not renounce them now? Why not admit they were wrong and take the initiative to make amends instead of keeping quiet and waiting for someone to out them?

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.

If you think that wasn't going to happen anyways, you are dreaming. Contraceptives, for example, were a settled issue for decades until social conservatives started raising a fuss a few years ago. They're on the losing side of history, and they're making a desperate grab for power while they still can.

As I said in my above post, there is no way to not feed the reverse-victim delusion. These folks believe that not getting their way = the end of the world. You can't outwit crazy.

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.

So turn the other cheek, huh? We must give-up our right to free-expression in order to not infringe upon the right to high-level employment of those who sought to deny equal rights of others? We should shut-up or else we're the bad guys? "But I didn't say that at all. I merely implied that with pious double-talk." Sorry, but no sale. I've personally bought the reverse-victim bs for years. I'm through with that noise.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

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.

He didn't 'espouse' bad views. No one has any evidence of him using his position as CEO of Mozilla to push his backward views on anyone.

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?

How about the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with his job and his ability to carry it out?

That they didn't know? That they didn't do some frigging background research on the guy before putting him in charge? Come on!

Tell me, how would you feel if a prospective employer saw the post you just made and decided not to hire you because of your personal views?

That someone can be successfully shamed for hating on LGBTs is a sign that we're going in the right direction.

Donating money to a campaign aimed at repealing gay marriage is not evidence that you 'hate' the LGBT crowd. All it indicates is a misguided opinion that only men and women should be allowed to get married, and if you assume that everyone who thinks that way 'hates' you and needs to be shamed out of their job/society, you'll get nowhere.

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.

Speak for yourself. I'm a gay marriage supporter and I don't think he deserved to be pressured into stepping down for something he did years ago.

 

[Jingle Fett]

So to recap, the guy got fired for supporting a California bill from 6 years ago...that passed, and which the majority of California democratically also voted in favor of. And which also passed in spite of California having two of the most gay-friendly cities in the US (Los Angeles and San Francisco)

 

[Something Amyss]

I still don't give a crap, but good for the people who do. I didn't particularly want to support him, but I didn't particularly feel like a boycott either.

I'm still constantly amazed when people try to be public figures AND be vocal about their controversial opinions. When has that ever worked out for someone?

Quite often, really? Especially folks like Dick Dynasty who managed to parlay horrible opinions into a boost to their empire.

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.

People who don't fall in line? Dude financially contributed to barring equal rights. Maybe pick a more honest example when you make a stand and attack people for "social justice" (as though it's somehow a bad thing).

Yes, I'm sure that's how certain people will spin it, but why propagate a blatant lie for them?

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.

[citation needed]

A lot of people who don't like OKcupid's stupid publicity stunt to get a man fired, do not agree with the man's views.

That's irrelevant to the ridiculous assertion that he was targeted merely for not falling in line or the rebuttal to that statement.

Pretty dumb.

I'm gay, I get that people dislike it. I agree with your right to state this dislike, just as much as I agree with others rights to state their fondness of it.

I agree with the freedom for people to say and do whatever they like in a reasonable and non-too-harmful way.

Be it voting against something you dislike, protesting for something you want changed, or sending messages to people you disagree with on twitter.

Harmful is a bit of a grey area, as obviously, there are some people whom are more sensitive than others, so, I tend to draw the line at "Actual physical harm or threats".

Do you believe civil rights should be up for popular vote? Just curious.

Dude made a 10k donation(which let's be honest, is a drop in the bucket for a political campaign) 6 years ago(Give or take, I might be recollecting poorly.) and we're holding his belief against him, when he has since not spoken out in a public manner against LGBT community, and some of you expect he should have publicly apologized for having held a discriminating belief during a time where it was considered normal(No less wrong, don't get me wrong.)? If he had made said donation less than a year ago, fine, take him to the cleaners for being a general dick, but come on, seriously?

What is the time limit?

 

[jehk]

Popular =/= Cool, It is an issue an increasing amount of people favor now, but the public is fickle, and one day they can be with you and the next you could be on your own. For example, years ago Homosexuality would have been a Taboo topic, not brought up, the majority of people didn't want anything to do with it, and suppressing Gays was acceptable, clearly that is not acceptable now. Had this man contributed to a campaign that was pro-homosexuals 50-70 years ago he would have been in the same position now, told to step down, or stepping down on his own.

Worse still, this happened six years ago, it was dredged up, and it still cost him his job, for nothing more than having the current unpopular opinion.

I worry about things like this, because it is very likely 30-40 years down the line you, or I, or any of us could be the ones who have the unpopular opinion, many people would like to think they will always be the champions of progress, but you forget that our fathers and grandfathers were more than likely their champions of progress, Black Rights, Women Rights, Minority Rights, all progressive for their time. But now they are the villains, we will be the villains too, and I damn well sure want you and I and everyone else to have the right to have a personal opinion and not be attacked for it, to not lose our jobs for it, to not be vilified and torn down for it. Not only is what you did to this man wrong, it is SHORT SIGHTED.

The day I try to take away someone's rights for no good reason is the day I deserve to be vilified.

If I go down that route I hope it happens. Maybe it will force me to re-evaluation my opinions.

 

[DrOswald]

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.

...by discriminating against homosexuals. This is that reverse victim crap I was just talking about.

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.

So were witch hunts.

And they just don't see anyway to protect their beliefs that doesn't effect you.

That same rationale can be used to ban interfaith or even interracial marriage. That they're too ignorant to see that allowing same-sex marriages to happen won't affect heterosexual marriages is their problem.

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.

And no other bigots ever feared the groups they oppressed would seek revenge someday? Its called "paranoia." Its another form of the reverse-victim delusion. Besides, don't these conservative hypocrites write laws that allow "religious based" bullying in school with the precise intent to leave LGBT students unprotected?

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.

Which contributed to LGBTs losing some of their rights. Getting the guy fired is a far cry from denying him his basic civil rights. But if you still want to classify that as "revenge" then point taken. But...

He has never even publicly spoken out against the LGBT community.

Bigotry doesn't count if its all actions and no words? Thats pretty thin.

Brendan Eich was no threat to the LGBT community. He only became a threat as a martyr.

So once the axis powers were defeated in WW2, they were no longer a threat and we shouldn't have punished them with war-crime trials in Nuremberg? Don't give me that look. The difference is only a matter of degree.

Besides, if Eich is a "martyr" for losing a job, then what do you call the slain victims of hate-crimes? Its going to take alot more than unemployment for me to feel sorry for someone who helped feed a culture of hate.

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.

"Destroyed" my ass. If anything this proves we made progress. Otherwise, Eich wouldn't have felt pressured to step down.

Everyone on the other side has had their worst fears confirmed. "Live and let live" is clearly not an option.

For conservatives, it never was. See my post above for details.

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.

Why not renounce them now? Why not admit they were wrong and take the initiative to make amends instead of keeping quiet and waiting for someone to out them?

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.

If you think that wasn't going to happen anyways, you are dreaming. Contraceptives, for example, were a settled issue for decades until social conservatives started raising a fuss a few years ago. They're on the losing side of history, and they're making a desperate grab for power while they still can.

As I said in my above post, there is no way to not feed the reverse-victim delusion. These folks believe that not getting their way = the end of the world. You can't outwit crazy.

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.

So turn the other cheek, huh? We must give-up our right to free-expression in order to not infringe upon the right to high-level employment of those who sought to deny equal rights of others? We should shut-up or else we're the bad guys? "But I didn't say that at all. I merely implied that with pious double-talk." Sorry, but no sale. I've personally bought the reverse-victim bs for years. I'm through with that noise.

And so the wheels of hatred continue to spin. Our battle cry is no longer "equality for all" but "an eye for an eye". Please excuse me if I don't see that as progress.

"Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love." - Martian Luther King Jr.

 

[Vegosiux]

Right, and just like I don't owe it to him or a any company he runs to support said company.

Exactly. You have no such obligation. However, nobody has an obligation to agree with your decision, or to accept guilt by association flung at them if they still prefer Mozilla over Chrome.

I would say it's more like "if you're an open bigot, people will call you on it".

I see a slight difference between "calling someone out" and "forcing someone out of a job", but maybe that's just me.

Again, if Mozilla operated in an anti-gay fashion under him, I've got no comment, slap some sense into the company. But the thing is, it didn't, and he's been with it, at the center of it, for years. This isn't like EA where anti-consumer practices are systemic in the company itself.

To go into a bit of hyperbole, let's say the boycott would cause financial problems for the company. Do we tell the people who had nothing to do with this guy, and just work there, "Tough shit" if they get let off because of downsizing? Again, keeping in mind that Eich himself wouldn't feel a scratch, he'd just relocate to a more low-profile, still well-paying job, either within the company or somewhere else.

That's where the "short-sighted" complaint comes from. To put it into a bit of metaphor, if this was an assassination instead, your target being the guy at the top of the building, this would be the equivalent of blowing up the building with everyone in it to get at that one guy. Only that the entire building under him would cushion his fall, and he'd walk away with a few scratches at most.

See my earlier example of the open KKK member who runs a restaurant and is shocked to find that only other white supremacists want to eat there.

I'd have to check what kind of people his employees are before I make a comment on that. I mean, if he only hires those who favor KKK, it comes as no surprise.

 

[EiMitch]

This has never been some secret. The donor list for Prop 8 has been public for years

I didn't say it was secret. I said it was overlooked.

That has, incidentally, resulted in forms of harassment [http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?id=6479861] against Prop 8 supporters.

The death threats bother me, thats a given. But what about the death threats LGBTs frequently receive? Or the actual hate-motivated murders of LGBTs? Sorry, but which side am I supposed to feel sorry for? The ones who fueled a culture of hate, or the ones who've been frequent targets of it?

"We weren't paying attention until the Internet Lynch Mobs told us who we were supposed to hate" is not exactly a compelling moral argument for action.

By that logic, I should forgive Woody Allen for molesting his daughter simply because I didn't know about it until recently. (no, I don't mean the step-daughter he married. I mean the daughter he subsequently had with her)

Nobody knows every single piece of trivia about everybody. Not knowing doesn't mean not caring.

Why don't you swing that judgmental pendulum back at Mozilla? It was somebody's job at that company to know these things about their employees. Why was Mozilla cool with it until someone called them out for it?

 

[jehk]

And so the wheels of hatred continue to spin. Our battle cry is no longer "equality for all" but "an eye for an eye". Please excuse me if I don't see that as progress.

If I support Brendan Eich then I'm supporting inequality. If I don't support him then, by your words, I'm supporting inequality. What a wonderful argument you've constructed.

 

[The Lunatic]

Do you believe civil rights should be up for popular vote? Just curious.

Not sure really.


In an ideal world, I think it'd be interesting to see the experts on a subject suggest two people whom know as much about the subject as possible and embody the for and against of a certain argument.

They debate, explain points and inform all those whom care to vote as best as possible, and then the observers vote.


Of course, this is all just the silly blue-sky thinking of an armchair libertarian.

 

[EiMitch]

And so the wheels of hatred continue to spin. Our battle cry is no longer "equality for all" but "an eye for an eye". Please excuse me if I don't see that as progress.

"Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love." - Martian Luther King Jr.

Unintended irony alert! MLK Jr's tactics included boycotts to get their way. And you're trying to use that image against LGBTs for exercising their right to free expression and to use other browsers than Firefox? It sounds like you're trying to make a martyr out of Eich. I'll give you credit for using more "benevolent" mental gymnastics than most for protecting bigots from their own actions. But thats ultimately all you're doing.

 

[Vegosiux]

Do you believe civil rights should be up for popular vote? Just curious.

Should or shouldn't doesn't matter, they are, every time elections roll around, we indirectly vote about civil rights whenever we choose our next round of legislators. That's why I tend to vote for parties who, among other things, campaign and endeavor for civil rights for everyone.

If you're asking about a referendum, however, I would need to think very hard and for a while to figure out if it's practically possible to get that under the roof without it being so vague that it would serve no purpose.

 

[Ratty]

Right, and just like I don't owe it to him or a any company he runs to support said company.

Exactly. You have no such obligation. However, nobody has an obligation to agree with your decision, or to accept guilt by association flung at them if they still prefer Mozilla over Chrome.

And I never would accuse FF users of being guilty by association, nor did I suggest I would. In fact, I had not yet gotten around to changing my browser (though I was going to tonight) and now I'm not going to.

I would say it's more like "if you're an open bigot, people will call you on it".

I see a slight difference between "calling someone out" and "forcing someone out of a job", but maybe that's just me.

He got voted out by the wallets of the protestors. Mozzilla probably panicked when it saw how many people were switching. He didn't have to resign. That was his choice, whether he made that choice because he refused to let go of his hateful bigotry against LGBTs (which appears likely) or not it was still his choice.

Again, if Mozilla operated in an anti-gay fashion under him, I've got no comment, slap some sense into the company. But the thing is, it didn't, and he's been with it, at the center of it, for years. This isn't like EA where anti-consumer practices are systemic in the company itself.

To go into a bit of hyperbole, let's say the boycott would cause financial problems for the company. Do we tell the people who had nothing to do with this guy, and just work there, "Tough shit" if they get let off because of downsizing? Again, keeping in mind that Eich himself wouldn't feel a scratch, he'd just relocate to a more low-profile, still well-paying job, either within the company or somewhere else.

That's corporate capitalism for you. Make of it what you will. You could use this argument to say it's immoral to not buy anything. "Yeah the product is shitty, but that's because of managerial meddling. Think of all the people who will lose their jobs if you don't buy it."

That's where the "short-sighted" complaint comes from. To put it into a bit of metaphor, if this was an assassination instead, your target being the guy at the top of the building, this would be the equivalent of blowing up the building with everyone in it to get at that one guy. Only that the entire building under him would cushion his fall, and he'd walk away with a few scratches at most.

Again, that's the nature of modern corporate capitalism. And besides, this did not happen and it shows that companies that are very image conscious will make management changes with public pressure.

See my earlier example of the open KKK member who runs a restaurant and is shocked to find that only other white supremacists want to eat there.

I'd have to check what kind of people his employees are before I make a comment on that. I mean, if he only hires those who favor KKK, it comes as no surprise.

Presumably he'd have to hire other people because of anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. Whether anyone else would work there if they had alternatives (which they might not, it's a tough job market) is another question. But ultimately if he was a known member of a prominent hategroup, a lot of people would avoid his establishment on principle.