Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[Vegosiux]

-snippety-

Yes, that's the nature of corporate capitalism for you. You want to make an omelet, you need to break a few eggs, I get that. What I find a tad aggravating is that everyone's fine and dandy with that, as long as it's not their own eggs.

I did make a distinction between a boycott of a shitty product and boycott of a company with an unlikeable CEO, mind. Iif Mozilla started to actually operate in an anti-gay fashion, I'd be hopping over completely to that abomination that is Chrome too, as much as I don't like all the tacked-on junk.

Real sleepy and going to bed, I'll leave it at this here. And I surely hope I forget the idea about a nice guy thread (related to this) that just popped up in my mind by morning...

 

[Saetha]

Hey, cool! Well, that wrapped that up nicely. And hear I was afraid that someone would suffer big time over this whole mess - well, someone who didn't bring it on themselves, at least. Good on Mozilla for wising up.

 

[EiMitch]

Martian Luther King Jr. boycotted businesses which actively denied equal service and employment to black people or attacked them violently. Guess what Mozilla and Branden Eich did not do?

Funny how you re-defined it from "denying equal rights" to "denying service and employment" specifically, just to dodge the point you clearly understood. LGBTs exercised their freedoms of expression and choice by not supporting someone who actively denied their rights in the past nor the company who gave that guy a powerful and representative job. Referring to that as "revenge" is little more than hyperbole.

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

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?

What about the threats and murders against LGBTs? They're awful. They're appalling. The people who did them should be thrown under the jail. Is this a trick question?

As to who you're supposed to feel sorry for, I wouldn't presume to dictate that to you. I just hope that you would recognize that a culture of hate can flow in all sorts of directions, including from some with positions you agree with.

"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.

No, but it does speak a bit to the degree of the offense. Furthermore, child molestation is a crime and a direct violent offense against a person. Placing a ballot initiative in California is not, no matter how you and I may dislike the initiative. The two things are really not comparable.

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?

I don't know, maybe they thought they lived in a free society where employees' opinions on a specific, narrow political issue weren't relevant to their job performance? Maybe they thought that a company that prides itself on openness shouldn't be in the business of auditing their employees' thoughts? Maybe they worried that canning someone based on an opinion related to religious beliefs would be treading on dangerous legal ground [http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm]?

 

[DrOswald]

Martian Luther King Jr. boycotted businesses which actively denied equal service and employment to black people or attacked them violently. Guess what Mozilla and Branden Eich did not do?

Funny how you re-defined it from "denying equal rights" to "denying service and employment" specifically, just to dodge the point you clearly understood. LGBTs exercised their freedoms of expression and choice by not supporting someone who actively denied their rights in the past nor the company who gave that guy a powerful and representative job. Referring to that as "revenge" is little more than hyperbole.

Yeah, how weird I would make the distiction. It's almost as if I believe that actual violence and a company policy of following racist practices is different than a single employee holding prejudiced views which have never, in the history of his 16 years at that company, effected his performance in the slightest.

 

[EiMitch]

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.

Deliberately taking me out of context is reason enough to not respond to the rest of your post. But I've decided I will anyway.

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

Nothing to do with his job? Providing material support to a controversial law has nothing to do with giving someone a powerful and representative position? That Mozilla never expected their users to care? Is that what you mean?

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?

I'd be pissed at first. But then I'd take that as a sign that employer would've been hell to work with anyway, and move on.

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.

Simply choosing not to see it as hate doesn't mean it isn't. Racists don't see themselves as hate groups. They don't even see themselves as racists. I saw a man proudly wearing KKK robes sans hood, in front of a tv news camera, in broad daylight, with no face blurring saying that he didn't consider himself a racist. He just wanted more good things for his race.

Behold the power of rationalization. And you just rationalized that denying someone equal rights isn't motivated by hate. Another reason I almost didn't answer your post. Almost.

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.

"I've got a black friend, so I'm not racist." Thats what you sound like.

I do think Eich deserved to be pressured into stepping down. If you codify bigotry into law, feeding a culture of hate on a significant level, it should come back to bite you. You earned it. You think our past actions should exist in a vacuum. I don't think so.

 

[Redd the Sock]

A thing people supporting this seem to be forgetting is that voting for one's own values and desired outcomes is also a right, one more firmly enshrined in the constitution. Voting was intended to be a secret ballot to prevent these types of intimidation tactics, and while campaign finance laws seems to have fucked that up, but the point behind it is sound. I have the right to vote for my own interest devoid of external forces telling me I have to vote for their interests.

While people have the right to support the companies they feel live up to their values, they also have to admit that it's a bully tactic trying to force others to vote a certain way. Make the consequences too dire, and you may as well admit you don't respect anyone's right to vote against you, and like I joked in my first post here, why claim you respect the right to vote at all at that point.

You can disagree with someone, you can debate, you can shout down, you can ridicule, but when you say "voting / speaking against me has consequences" you've stopped showing respect for that person's right to speak or vote. That's an intersting way to get equal rights: by making it painful to exercise certain rights of people with dissenting opinions. I said it before, I don't agree with the guy's stance, but I don't want my employer to fire me if I don't agree with him on global warming, or my coworkers to shun me if I didn't vote for the officially supported candidate, or our vegitarian customers to cancel services if they see me eat a burger.

 

[EiMitch]

Yeah, how weird I would make the distiction. It's almost as if I believe that actual violence and a company policy of following racist practices is different than a single employee holding prejudiced views which have never, in the history of his 16 years at that company, effected his performance in the slightest.

Did the companies themselves commit those acts of violence themselves? Nope. (there might be exceptions I've forgotten about, but I digress) What the companies did was reinforce a culture of hate that inevitably led to violence. And guess what prop 8 did?

All thats left to your distinction is the notion that one's past actions should exist in a vacuum outside his job. Which I recall being your original argument more or less. So, unless I'm missing something, that makes this a circular argument. You used your original point to prove itself in a desperate bid to deny that you shot yourself in the foot with that MLK reference.

 

[f1r2a3n4k5]

Regardless of all the people claiming this was over-the-line, which it very way may have been, the LGB community still cannot get access to full rights in the US. LGB individuals can still be fired from their jobs or barred from housing, simply for their orientation.

So over-the-line or not, before anyone dares to try to claim this is "reverse-discrimination" take a look at Eich's invisible knapsack (and your own) for just a hot minute.

Additionally, don't assume this was merely the "Internet"'s doing. A number of key employees and board members were uncomfortable with the move and stepped out, which is well-within their right. Did you consider, perhaps, that it was not OKCupid's doing, but internal strife? As is much more likely?

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Deliberately taking me out of context is reason enough to not respond to the rest of your post. But I've decided I will anyway.

Right, and what does the omitted context change, in this instance?

Nothing to do with his job? Providing material support to a controversial law has nothing to do with giving someone a powerful and representative position? That Mozilla never expected their users to care? Is that what you mean?

Of course it shouldn't, especially if you do so from your private funds. If you commit company resources to doing so, it's a different story.

]Simply choosing not to see it as hate doesn't mean it isn't. Racists don't see themselves as hate groups. They don't even see themselves as racists. I saw a man proudly wearing KKK robes sans hood, in front of a tv news camera, in broad daylight, with no face blurring saying that he didn't consider himself a racist. He just wanted more good things for his race.

Behold the power of rationalization. And you just rationalized that denying someone equal rights isn't motivated by hate. Another reason I almost didn't answer your post. Almost.

Have you ever considered that it's motivated by ignorance and/or blind reverence for tradition? Because that's what most of the people who I know who aren't for gay marriage are motivated by, and I work hard to try and change their viewpoint. They don't 'hate' gay people at all. Accusing them of hating someone is not only irrational, it shuts down the chance of having a dialogue with them where you can try to persuade them otherwise.

"I've got a black friend, so I'm not racist." Thats what you sound like.

"You're either with us or you're against us". That's what you sound like.

 

[EiMitch]

I just hope that you would recognize that a culture of hate can flow in all sorts of directions, including from some with positions you agree with.

So actively denying someone their civil rights is the same as pressuring someone to stand down from a high profile job for previous said denial of said rights? I'm not about to label both as "hate."

No, but it does speak a bit to the degree of the offense.

Are you saying Woody Allen's offense wasn't that bad? Because that one has been kept quiet for some time, despite records existing in public.

Furthermore, child molestation is a crime and a direct violent offense against a person. Placing a ballot initiative in California is not, no matter how you and I may dislike the initiative.

Which you knew wasn't the point. You're basically changing the subject. My point was that not knowing doesn't mean not caring. You haven't rebutted that at all.

I don't know, maybe they thought they lived in a free society where employees' opinions on a specific, narrow political issue weren't relevant to their job performance?

So denying others their civil rights has nothing to do with a high profile job? A janitor could've seen that shit-storm coming.

Maybe they thought that a company that prides itself on openness shouldn't be in the business of auditing their employees' thoughts?

Including those who deny such openness to others and seeks a job that essentially makes him a primary company representative?

Maybe they worried that canning someone based on an opinion related to religious beliefs would be treading on dangerous legal ground [http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm]?

"The bible said its okay to be prejudiced, therefore its just a religious belief and dare you be prejudiced against me." Like I said, I'm tired of that kind of reverse-victim "logic," but I digress. You're complaining about others exercising their rights to free expression and choice resulting in someone stepping down, and then defending that bigot who actively denied others their civil rights on the grounds of religious freedom. Please tell me you at least see the irony now that I've pointed it out.

 

[jehk]

Worse, though, there are actually people who believe that it's justified for someone to lose their job over their beliefs.

He did more than just believe it. He actively contributed to taking away rights from other people. That is harmful behavior and not just to people affected by prop 8. Why would an employer ever risk being associated with that?

This demonstrates that a corporation cares about inclusiveness and equal rights and that one person, even the CEO, isn't above that.

 

[EiMitch]

Yes, use mob tactics on a guy who made a private donation to something 6 years ago. Way to lead the fucking witch hunt there. So much for ''Tolerance''

"It was six years ago, so it doesn't count anymore." I'm already getting tired of hearing that argument. Its arbitrary and stupid, which I can prove with two basic follow-up questions:

"Whats the statute of limitations for someone who actively suppressed others civil rights before we must forgive and forget?" And...

"Why exactly should those interim six years matter?"

The only answer I've seen to the later question was "that proves nobody cared," to which I answered, "no, that proves people didn't notice." I've yet to read any answer to the former question.

So, unless you're prepared to go into much more detail about it, please lets all stfu about how it was six years ago. Its a ridiculously thin talking point that proves diddly.

 

[RaikuFA]

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.

This is what I was trying to get through.

And yet people are still saying it's wrong to do anything about this guy.

 

[DrOswald]

Yeah, how weird I would make the distiction. It's almost as if I believe that actual violence and a company policy of following racist practices is different than a single employee holding prejudiced views which have never, in the history of his 16 years at that company, effected his performance in the slightest.

Did the companies themselves commit those acts of violence themselves? Nope. (there might be exceptions I've forgotten about, but I digress) What the companies did was reinforce a culture of hate that inevitably led to violence. And guess what prop 8 did?

There were plenty of cases where violence was committed by the employees. Like in cases of police violence.

All thats left to your distinction is the notion that one's past actions should exist in a vacuum outside his job. Which I recall being your original argument more or less. So, unless I'm missing something, that makes this a circular argument. You used your original point to prove itself in a desperate bid to deny that you shot yourself in the foot with that MLK reference.

First, I do not believe punishing a person for the actions of another is reasonable. Branden Eich committed no violence. He should not be punished for the violent actions of other people and neither should his employer.

Second, I do not buy the argument that peaceful bigotry must inevitably lead to violent bigotry and therefore peaceful bigotry should be met with opposition on par with the opposition against violent bigotry.

Third, I do not believe that supporting a bill or law is the equivalent of a violent hate crime unless that bill directly legalizes or encourages violent hate crimes.

Fourth, I do not believe that peoples actions should exist in a vacuum outside their job. What we have observed in this man's past shows that he would not use this position of power to push his personal beliefs or discriminate in anyway. In addition, I do not think that his past mistake was large enough to justify the boycott against him considering his excellent past record of non discrimination in the workplace. Had this man had a past history of workplace discrimination I would support the actions taken against him.

 

[SamTheNewb]

Crimes are an act of an instant. Beliefs are acts and thoughts that occur continuously. Beliefs don't have a statute of limitation, but they exists until they change.

 

[jehk]

So when you argue about the "rights" being "taken away" from people, you are inevitably forced to ignore the fact that their efforts to obtain their rights are coming at the expense of the rights of others. And from a standpoint of law, your rights end where another's begin (meaning that you cannot argue your "right" to something if it infringes upon the rights of another). From that perspective, what was done to this man was absolutely an infringing of his rights as an individual. Bullying someone out of their career, especially someone as instrumental to Mozilla's creation as this man was, simply because they disagree with you on a single social issue is NOT the right way to wage a war of civil liberties.

Speaking against and boycotting his company does not infringe upon his rights in any way whatsoever. He can still say whatever bigoted things he wants. He can still donate money to any anti-gay group he wants.

Working as the CEO of Mozilla is not a right.

However, if prop 8 was successful people like me would lose rights. In fact, -I- would lose rights if I ever moved to California.

Do you see the difference because this is a massively skeevy.

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

I just hope that you would recognize that a culture of hate can flow in all sorts of directions, including from some with positions you agree with.

So actively denying someone their civil rights is the same as pressuring someone to stand down from a high profile job for previous said denial of said rights? I'm not about to label both as "hate."

I pointed out that there was violence, vandalism and threats against supporters of Prop 8. A phenomenon you, to your credit, decried. This is hate, is it not?

The thing is, you persist in trying to tie Eich to a "culture of hate" due to his donation, invoking violence and oppression against LGBT people. What I'm trying to get across to you is the idea that if donating money to a cause, which is by definition ordinary (and constitutionally protected) political activity, can "feed a culture of hate", then so can things like this boycott (which is also ordinary, legal, constitutionally protected political activity.)

I'm not, of course, saying that nothing can ever be boycotted. The question then becomes, "When is such activity justified"? I doubt we will have the same answer to that question, and that's okay. But what I want to know is, where does it stop? A CEO is fair game for a $1000 donation, apparently. How about a restaurant manager for a $100 donation [http://laist.com/2008/12/08/el_coyote_manager_resigns_after_pro.php]?

No, but it does speak a bit to the degree of the offense.

Are you saying Woody Allen's offense wasn't that bad? Because that one has been kept quiet for some time, despite records existing in public.

-snip-

Which you knew wasn't the point. You're basically changing the subject. My point was that not knowing doesn't mean not caring. You haven't rebutted that at all.

Changing the subject? By discussing the nature of the comparison you brought up?

And the degree of the offense absolutely matters. I don't think it makes me or anyone else a hypocrite for looking at child molestation on the one hand, and donating to Prop 8 on the other, and saying, "Neh, not the same thing. Doesn't justify the same level of opprobrium."

-snip-

So denying others their civil rights has nothing to do with a high profile job? A janitor could've seen that shit-storm coming.

Maybe they thought that a company that prides itself on openness shouldn't be in the business of auditing their employees' thoughts?

Including those who deny such openness to others and seeks a job that essentially makes him a primary company representative?

Maybe they worried that canning someone based on an opinion related to religious beliefs would be treading on dangerous legal ground [http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm]?

"The bible said its okay to be prejudiced, therefore its just a religious belief and dare you be prejudiced against me." Like I said, I'm tired of that kind of reverse-victim "logic," but I digress. You're complaining about others exercising their rights to free expression and choice resulting in someone stepping down, and then defending that bigot who actively denied others their civil rights on the grounds of religious freedom. Please tell me you at least see the irony now that I've pointed it out.

This isn't about defending bigots. You asked me what Mozilla's reasoning might have been not for firing him, or whatever it is you felt they should have done. Employment discrimination law is what it is, however you or me or Mozilla may feel about it. Especially when there was, again, zero evidence of any friction caused by Eich in any of the years he worked at Mozilla.

I'm interested though: you seem to believe that it is a corporation's right, and in fact duty, to police the political opinions of its employees, with the apparent justification that something might offend the customer base. OK, fine.

Is there a limiting principle to that belief? Can a restaurant fire a longtime gay server because the restaurant has started serving a large after-church crowd? Can a rural sheriff's department refuse to promote a black deputy to patrol supervisor because they fear the trailer-park population they police would react badly? Can a business owner who faces mounting costs under the new health-care act fire people who voted for Obama [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/obamacare-layoffs-georgia-obama_n_2095162.html]?

 

[O maestre]

Worse, though, there are actually people who believe that it's justified for someone to lose their job over their beliefs.

He did more than just believe it. He actively contributed to taking away rights from other people. That is harmful behavior and not just to people affected by prop 8. Why would an employer ever risk being associated with that?

This demonstrates that a corporation cares about inclusiveness and equal rights and that one person, even the CEO, isn't above that.

A law that was proposed by elected officials, it is not as if he went out of his way to fund some radical extremist fringe group. What about the politicians that that made prop 8 shouldn't they also get their come uppin's?
Hell 52% of the voters for that proposition voted yes. Yes institutionalized discrimination is horrible, but hardly something unique restricted to Eich six years ago.

I understand why the company did this the general populace has a hard time differentiating between a job and a person, but I'd rather have stuck with my decision for CEO. News that hits the internet will pass as soon as the next shiny thing hits the cycle.
I also wonder how people would have reacted had he told that he had changed his mind?
And do we really want our employers to "police" our personal views?

 

[O maestre]

Crimes are an act of an instant. Beliefs are acts and thoughts that occur continuously. Beliefs don't have a statute of limitation, but they exists until they change.

That is a strangely forumalted maxim. Crimes do not only occour in an instance, if I understand what an instance is in your case. What about people who skim of the top from every dollar they put in the till, or organized crime.

It is true that a crime is an action, but how does a belief qualify, I can't do beliefs.
Beliefs fuel our actions, beliefs may fuel crime or violence or kindness, believing something is not an action in and of itself. Hence why have an expression called "to act upon his beliefs"

I don't think anyone wants to live in a place where mere thoughts are censored or punished.

Going out of the metaphor here, if Eich committed a crime then so did the 52% of Californians who voted for prop 8 and the people who drafted it. should 52% of Californians be fired?