Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[Avaholic03]

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?

He was never vocal. He made a private donation to a campaign. He has not, to my knowledge, never even expressed any of his viewpoints in a public way and his donations were rooted out and then he was set upon by an angry mob. What exactly was his crime? Having a private opinion others felt he didn't have the right not have.

I don't think he is really much of a public figure. He's not a media personality, he's not an activist he was simply a highly qualified individual in charge of a tech company and i think in the privacy of his own mind he has the right to think and support what he wants.

Donating $1000 to a cause, especially one that polarizing, is being vocal. As they say "money talks".

He may not be a media personality, but being a CEO/CFO/other executive for a large company IS a public position, whether they want it to be or not.

I'm not saying that he isn't entitled to his opinions, or to even spread his money around as he sees fit. But he had to expect that this would come up eventually.

 

[The Material Sheep]

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?

He was never vocal. He made a private donation to a campaign. He has not, to my knowledge, never even expressed any of his viewpoints in a public way and his donations were rooted out and then he was set upon by an angry mob. What exactly was his crime? Having a private opinion others felt he didn't have the right not have.

I don't think he is really much of a public figure. He's not a media personality, he's not an activist he was simply a highly qualified individual in charge of a tech company and i think in the privacy of his own mind he has the right to think and support what he wants.

Donating $1000 to a cause, especially one that polarizing, is being vocal. As they say "money talks".

He may not be a media personality, but being a CEO/CFO/other executive for a large company IS a public position, whether they want it to be or not.

I'm not saying that he isn't entitled to his opinions, or to even spread his money around as he sees fit. But he had to expect that this would come up eventually.

I can understand that, as a pragmatic way of looking at things, but ideally shouldn't there be some separation between personal and public appearance?

Like when I say OKcupid was being unethical for airing that, it's not because I think all monetary donations should be 100% private, but because that was something he did privately, as an individual, and not as the leader of a company.

 

[Flatfrog]

I understand what you're saying, but nevertheless I still can't help feeling this is a step forward. We've reached the stage where being (publicly) homophobic makes your job untenable.

You do not know this man from Adam I am willing to bet, yet feel comfortable labeling him as "homophobic" because he supports traditional marriage? By all accounts, he ran a very diverse and inclusive ship at Mozilla. You are of course free to believe whatever you want, but if you want to claim this man has some deep-seated hatred of homosexuals, you should have a little more evidence than a small contribution to a political campaign years ago.

Fair point. I was letting a propensity for wordplay get the better of me, so I used a stronger label than the case merited. Apologies for any offence.

 

[DrOswald]

I still don't know how I feel about this. The guy was a founder of Mozilla, created JavaScript and has been a CTO for 9 years. Regardless of personally being a dick he was the guy most qualified to do this job. And in terms of internet specific principles, I can get behind open platforms and all that.

On the other hand he was supporting something that has made many millions of people unhappy.

----------------------------
I don't know, I still don't have any conclusions. Is it right that he never works for a company at the level he is most qualified for again? Is it right for a company to hire someone with such damaging beliefs towards other people?

I'll tell you where i fall. The guy from what i've read did indeed have an opinion but professionally he did not attack his LGBT coworkers, he did not try to fire them and didn't reverse the stated pro LGBT rights of his company. And beyond that he was qualified. He showed his support for something as quietly as possible and then because of that was driven out of a position he was perfectly suitable for. So I do feel this is unjustified for him. The summation of a persons character is not his opinion on ONE SINGLE subject.

That's persuasive. If he's not hostile to the people around him or even driving his company into that direction then he wasn't really doing harm in that position. Homophobia is awful but I don't know if I'm comfortable with the idea that homophobes shouldn't have good jobs if they're qualified, that's too extreme.

...but on the other hand I've never had to suffer any ostracisation because of my sexual orientation. It's easy for me to be dismissive.

The idea that he was a homophobe is completely unfounded. He has never spoken out against homosexuality in anyway, he has never committed anything that could be construed as a hate crime. No one could even make the slightest claim, unfounded or not, that he ever discriminated against a homosexual ever, which is amazing. I doubt I could work for as long as he did in the tech industry without ever accidentally slighting at least 1 gay person. Especially if I actively hated gay people and was working to oppress them.

All we have on him is that he donated $1000 to prop 8.

The idea that same sex marriage is solely an issue of whether or not you hate gay people is false. For many this is a religious issue. They want the LGBT community to have every right they have, but they believe for religious reasons that the term marriage should refer to only a union between a man and a woman. They are fine with, and even support, same sex unions with all the rights of traditional marriage, but in their mind "marriage" should be reserved as a religious institution.

We don't even know that he hated gay people. It is probably the case that he didn't. We probably just destroyed a man's career because of his religious beliefs.

 

[Kinitawowi]

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".

 

[Tanner The Monotone]

You know the trouble with empathy? You can't teach it by shaking your fists and screaming. I highly doubt Eich has come away from this with a positive outlook on the LGBT community. Odds are, he's come away even more hateful and just plain bitter now. On top of that, he's made himself look like the good guy by stepping down and protecting his employees who may not share his views, so they don't have to burn with him. Now, all you have to do is add the fact that absolutely nothing has been accomplished in the field of gay rights, and you've got a good old fashioned fuck up.

Believe me, I'm right there along with everybody else that says Eich was a dummy for funding prop 8. It was an insult to every single rational person on the planet, and it was an absolute joke that a country that calls itself free ever even opened up the possibility of it being legalized. However, I think the goal larger queer movement should be to teach and to help understand, not to demand heads just because somebody didn't agree with us that one time. We need less witch-hunting and reverse-shaming, and more of this:

Spoiler

We can't teach the idiotic masses anything by being just as close-minded as they are. Although, I suppose we should be allowed some close-mindedness, after all, we're not the ones treating them like animals just because of their sexual orientation.

Those people were actors, which wouldn't be so bad if they weren't making it out to be real and trying to shut people down that try to reveal that fact.

Are you talking about the 'First Kiss' video? Because, mine is not that.

No, the hug video. The Asian women at the beginning is an actor. After all the death threats she recieved she came out and admitted that fact.

 

[Flatfrog]

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.

 

[Flatfrog]

Does it matter if a police man is gay? Nope. Does it matter if a fireman is gay? Nope. Does it Matter if a Lawyer is gay? Nope. So why should it matter if a CEO is anti-gay.. or at least anti-gay marriage.. The two are not mutually inclusive.

Once again, even though this shouldn't need explaining. Being gay is not a choice. Being anti-gay is a choice.

 

[RJ 17]

There, happy now? You've succeeded in getting a man to quit his job. You've changed absolutely nothing other than the fact that there's just one more person seeking employment now.

Is this man suddenly going to become a LGBT supporter? I doubt it, the LGBT community just cost him his job. Is Mozilla going to change its anti-gay policies? Well it didn't have any to begin with, so that's not going to happen either.

I hope you're all proud of yourselves for making this guy "resign" just because of his personal beliefs.

Note: The "you" in this context is the LGBT community that proposed this pointless boycott and anyone else that supported it.

I'm fully aware that there are those in the LGBT community that disagreed with this witch-hunt of a boycott from the start, this post is not directed at you.

 

[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.

 

[Nowhere Man]

This sets a terrible precedent and makes me fear for our future as far as free speech is concerned. I support gay marriage but this kind of thing encourages thought police behavior and will only embolden people to use mob tactics even more given that it looks like it would reward them.

Yay, fight to end discrimination by encouraging discrimination.

Exactly.

To all the people cheering this news: just pray none of your opinions ever become unfashionable.

Precisely.

The funny thing is, at the end of the day I bet that OKcupid doesnt give a rat's ass about LGBT issues as it is more likely them just pandering to a market they feel they can win over easily with bullshit like this.

 

[Tanner The Monotone]

You know the trouble with empathy? You can't teach it by shaking your fists and screaming. I highly doubt Eich has come away from this with a positive outlook on the LGBT community. Odds are, he's come away even more hateful and just plain bitter now. On top of that, he's made himself look like the good guy by stepping down and protecting his employees who may not share his views, so they don't have to burn with him. Now, all you have to do is add the fact that absolutely nothing has been accomplished in the field of gay rights, and you've got a good old fashioned fuck up.

Believe me, I'm right there along with everybody else that says Eich was a dummy for funding prop 8. It was an insult to every single rational person on the planet, and it was an absolute joke that a country that calls itself free ever even opened up the possibility of it being legalized. However, I think the goal larger queer movement should be to teach and to help understand, not to demand heads just because somebody didn't agree with us that one time. We need less witch-hunting and reverse-shaming, and more of this:

Spoiler

We can't teach the idiotic masses anything by being just as close-minded as they are. Although, I suppose we should be allowed some close-mindedness, after all, we're not the ones treating them like animals just because of their sexual orientation.

Those people were actors, which wouldn't be so bad if they weren't making it out to be real and trying to shut people down that try to reveal that fact.

Are you talking about the 'First Kiss' video? Because, mine is not that.

No, the hug video. The Asian women at the beginning is an actor. After all the death threats she recieved she came out and admitted that fact.

Can you provide proof of this, or just heresay? Because, if it is staged, then, while I still think the message is good, I'll find another, more genuine example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlxkZwYUxoE&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPjZajtk4qQ

The actors they use are all in the description of the original hug video