Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[weirdee]

"Eich only announced he was stepping down after it was revealed late Wednesday that he'd given money to Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign in 1992, and later to Ron Paul's campaign," wrote Signorile. "Suddenly, in addition to defending a CEO who gave money to homophobic efforts, Mozilla would have to defend a CEO who supported Buchanan, a far right extremist and isolationist who's been accused of racist and anti-Semitic attacks, and who also was, rightly, driven off MSNBC."

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[forgo911]

snip

Let me clear this right now. By using the information about a private donation to purposely harm another person, this is an attack on his character. This means that he can go after OkCupid for defamation of character. Wither it was intentional or not, this man lost his job due to their stance on HIS beliefs.

By the way, everyone stop and think. Do you really think that you are going to change anyone's mind on something? Everyone is a stubborn mule who refuses to even think about something from the other side. I mean, everyone here is going to keep arguing no matter what so I might as well go sit back and watch the fore works.

Defamation has to be under false statements. I think what you're looking for is a lawsuit based on an invasion of privacy. I'm also not entirely sure that it is a case of privacy since I believe that large donations have to be put on public record, at least in the state of California.

I'm still not saying OkC is without some impact on this, it just isn't necessarily an illegal form of it.

Also, there isn't an LGBT movement that makes us into group which you seem to be implying. I and several other people are queer but we have not moved together as a force against Eich. Some people didn't care about Eich's opinions and kept using firefox, some people like me stopped using the browser but made no statements to the company that we thought they should change their CEO, and then some people probably did bring up that they'd use ff again if Eich were to step down. This is not an attempt to change your opinion on what happened to Eich being wrong or right. This is just a statement that there's really no group movement for you stand against if I did indeed understand what you typed.

Thank-you for clearing that up. While I do know a bit about law, it is mostly about landlord and tenet law.

Truth be told, I am of the opinion to just give those that are LGBT the right to marry. It's not because I have a strong opinion about the sitution, It's just I don't care. As I see it, there are much more important things to worry about than if people who are porking each other want to tell others that they are married. Why should I care what others do in their life? If they want to be married and then have to go through the divorce process like everyone else if their relationship fails, let them.

There reason I have such an issue with this is the fact that what OkCupid did cost a man his job. It was their actions alone that cost that man his job. The CEO did nothing to warrant a reaction that severe.

 

[Ratty]

Wow you can be forced to lose leave your job now if you don't fully support the LGBT cause. Im sure the biggest push actually came from heterosexual do-gooders. Congratulations you are as bad as the bigots you hate. And before I get attacked by the PC brigade who dwell on these threads I support gay marriage but I respect people who don't share that opinion and think singling him out was worse than what he did by donating money to a legal bill which goes to DEMOCRATIC VOTE anyway. Better than trial by media on the internet. OKcupid are dicks.

Except that the rights of the minority should not be up for a majority vote. How is people choosing not to use a browser because they don't want to support the person who has been put in charge of it, worse than someone paying money to try and make sure millions of people don't get equal treatment under the law? I ask again, what if he had spent this money on a campaign to end legal interracial marriage, which in many states was illegal until a few decades back?

Privilege, you keep using that word, i dont think it means what you think it means. In fact i think that word has been abused so much nobody knows what it meant anymore.

And you're wrong on that.

What makes him different to whoever "protested" Mozilla? He briefly was the boss. That is all, that is no privilege, or are you suggesting that the rich can be beaten on because they are rich? Yeah no, i dont believe it.

Your failure to accept it doesn't matter, the rich have influence, he used that influence to try and make sure people are not treated equally under the law. That is very different from choosing to not use a browser because you dislike the person in charge of it.

In fact people like these "social justice warriors" behave more like bullies than some rich fuck who maybe donated 1000 Dollars to a cause he supported,

"a cause he supported" you mean making sure people don't have equal rights.

No, SJW's are bullies, the whole lot of them. For one they always gang up on a single victim, they dont ever stop mistreating and hounding their target until they are so broken and damaged that they can smugly pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

Citation needed.

And no the Gays dont lose anything with this "fight". In a majority christian nation they already were ostracized for being gay, it doesnt fucking change anything if the law allows it if enough people are still bigots anyway.

You just described majority privilege. You know one of the ones you dismissed as nonexistant a second ago?

Right now, every restaurant can refuse service to anyone they want, black people, gays, KKK members..its their decision, but they can.

Wrong, The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation ...without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/title2.php

You have no fucking idea what "oppression" actually is, you see this through your first world lense and behave as if its the most horrible thing in the world, i advise you, if you want to fight for something, check third world countries, the middle east, or anywhere that ISNT the US. Because i garantuee you, your little "problem" pales in comparison.

So because a guy in another country has a busted septic tank I shouldn't try to get the leaking pipes in my house fixed?

Besides, it's not like this takes away from campaigns to end things like legal "corrective rape" of lesbians or the death penalty for being gay in Africa.

Raping someone is not as bad as Murder, because the victim might eventually get over it.

Don't you mean that a murder victim can't be harmed any further, while a rape victim will have to struggle with this trauma for the rest of their lives, possibly decades? You don't seem to understand how traumatic rape actually is to think it's something that can simply be "got over".

Logic, you dont have it. There is no difference, both actions are vile and evil. And yes his reputation is ruined because these people? These Social Justice fuckwits?

He donated his money to suppress equal rights, he has opted to resign rather than apologize. Don't blame people who drew attention to his actions or those who decided not to support him for his actions.

They wont stop, they will continue until they have removed him from society. Because that is how these people work. Whether you have money or not doesnt change anything, it doesnt matter if you go after the next homeless guy or a CEO, its equally as evil in both cases and no one deserves this. But sure, lets have your optimism. I predict this man will get hate-mail, death threats and more for the next 10 years while everyone will make sure to tell whoever will listen that he made one single mistake 6 years ago.

They dont stop. They will continue. Social Justice Warriors are basicly a hate group at this point and i despise them all for it.

Citation
Wait for it
Needed

 

[weirdee]

"We never expected this to get as big as it has and we never expected that Brendan wouldn?t make a simple statement," wrote Hampton and Michael Catlin in a Thursday blog post for their tech company Rarebit. "I met with Brendan and asked him to just apologize for the discrimination under the law that we faced. He can still keep his personal beliefs, but I wanted him to recognize that we faced real issues with immigration and say that he never intended to cause people problems. It?s heartbreaking to us that he was unwilling to say even that."

even more hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[A-D.]

Privilege, you keep using that word, i dont think it means what you think it means. In fact i think that word has been abused so much nobody knows what it meant anymore.

And you're wrong on that.

Wrong how? Define Privilege please because i can garantuee you that whatever you imply to be privilege isnt actually one. Next you'll tell me patriarchy is real.

What makes him different to whoever "protested" Mozilla? He briefly was the boss. That is all, that is no privilege, or are you suggesting that the rich can be beaten on because they are rich? Yeah no, i dont believe it.

Your failure to accept it doesn't matter, the rich have influence, he used that influence to try and make sure people are not treated equally under the law. That is very different from choosing to not use a browser because you dislike the person in charge of it.

1000 Dollars isnt rich. Everyone has the same chance to support a cause, either through manpower, or money if they so choose. What makes him special? Because he was the "white man in power". Thats called reverse-racism..or classism if you want. It doesnt really matter one lick here that people found it justified to let a whole company suffer because ONE GUY choose to exercise his free right to support whatever he believed in. Whether thats wrong or right is irrelevant if the actions taken in turn are just as vile as those who supported Prop-8.

In fact people like these "social justice warriors" behave more like bullies than some rich fuck who maybe donated 1000 Dollars to a cause he supported,

"a cause he supported" you mean making sure people don't have equal rights.

The Bible and in turn the Catholic Church has always been against homosexuals, they tolerate them now (couple hundred years ago? Not so much) but that doesnt mean they suddenly became accepting of them enough to let them marry traditionally, under a priest, in a church. Sure its a bit dumb, but Prop-8 simply implied marriage in a church, not marriage in general which would be essentially civil unions. Again, its the same as a restaurant refusing you service for being black, there is no law that you cant do that.

No, SJW's are bullies, the whole lot of them. For one they always gang up on a single victim, they dont ever stop mistreating and hounding their target until they are so broken and damaged that they can smugly pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

Citation needed.

Shall i link you to at least 5 30 minute youtube videos on the matter? Or do you wanna go look at it yourself instead?

And no the Gays dont lose anything with this "fight". In a majority christian nation they already were ostracized for being gay, it doesnt fucking change anything if the law allows it if enough people are still bigots anyway.

You just described majority privilege. You know one of the ones you dismissed as nonexistant a second ago?

No i described human nature. Just because you change a law doesnt mean humans will start acting differently. If the Law changed morality, well rape and murder wouldnt exist, now would they? Do you think the right to marry for gays will stop dumb people from "hating on fags"? No it wont.

Right now, every restaurant can refuse service to anyone they want, black people, gays, KKK members..its their decision, but they can.

Wrong, The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation ...without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/title2.php

The law might, doesnt mean you cant still do it anyway. You are comparing theory against praxis. Just because the law exists doesnt mean People wont still do it.

You have no fucking idea what "oppression" actually is, you see this through your first world lense and behave as if its the most horrible thing in the world, i advise you, if you want to fight for something, check third world countries, the middle east, or anywhere that ISNT the US. Because i garantuee you, your little "problem" pales in comparison.

So because a guy in another country has a busted septic tank I shouldn't try to get the leaking pipes in my house fixed?

Besides, it's not like this takes away from campaigns to end things like legal "corrective rape" of lesbians or the death penalty for being gay in Africa.

Oh it doesnt take away from those campaigns, but it implies that these problems are of the same value when they arent. Again some people thought that Gays shouldnt marry in a church, how is that the same as "corrective rape"? It fucking isnt.

Raping someone is not as bad as Murder, because the victim might eventually get over it.

Don't you mean that a murder victim can't be harmed any further, while a rape victim will have to struggle with this trauma for the rest of their lives, possibly decades? You don't seem to understand how traumatic rape actually is to think it's something that can simply be "got over".

You've just proven your own point here? Thats exactly what i was getting at. SJW's have made character assassination an artform. What happens if you wrongly accuse someone of being a rapist? or a pedophile? or mysoginist? Regardless of it being false, this stigma, this reputation will cling to them forever and have consequences for their lives.

Logic, you dont have it. There is no difference, both actions are vile and evil. And yes his reputation is ruined because these people? These Social Justice fuckwits?

He donated his money to suppress equal rights, he has opted to resign rather than apologize. Don't blame people who drew attention to his actions or those who decided not to support him for his actions.

Marriage in a Church is not a right if the Church can dictate what they accept to begin with. Thats called religious freedom. We dont have to agree with them, but thats what it is. If you can still be married outside of a church then you have not lost any right to anything. Again, he believed they shouldnt, how does that make him homophobic? How does this justify ruining his reputation or that of his company?

They wont stop, they will continue until they have removed him from society. Because that is how these people work. Whether you have money or not doesnt change anything, it doesnt matter if you go after the next homeless guy or a CEO, its equally as evil in both cases and no one deserves this. But sure, lets have your optimism. I predict this man will get hate-mail, death threats and more for the next 10 years while everyone will make sure to tell whoever will listen that he made one single mistake 6 years ago.

They dont stop. They will continue. Social Justice Warriors are basicly a hate group at this point and i despise them all for it.

Citation
Wait for it
Needed

[/quote]

Im not going to do your work for you, if you wish to act blind to the faults of several social movements then be my guest, but dont stand there and preach as if they dont exist.

 

[Ratty]

Privilege, you keep using that word, i dont think it means what you think it means. In fact i think that word has been abused so much nobody knows what it meant anymore.

And you're wrong on that.

Wrong how? Define Privilege please because i can garantuee you that whatever you imply to be privilege isnt actually one. Next you'll tell me patriarchy is real.

Since I did earlier, let's go with Merriam Webster's definitions again

Privilege
: a right or benefit that is given to some people and not to others

: a special opportunity to do something that makes you proud

: the advantage that wealthy and powerful people have over other people in a society

A straight person saying that it's "just an opinion" if someone tries to block equal marriage rights for LGBTs is speaking from a position of privilege, because they can already marry the person they love.

1000 Dollars isnt rich.

The ability to give it freely demonstrates wealth.

Everyone has the same chance to support a cause, either through manpower, or money if they so choose.

If they have the money, most people don't just have $1000 laying around that they can throw at any cause they support.

What makes him special? Because he was the "white man in power". Thats called reverse-racism..or classism if you want.

There's no such thing as "reverse-racism", the very idea of "reverse-racism" is racist. What do you call a white man who is racist? A racist. What do you call a black man who is racist? Racist. "reverse-racism" comes from the racist assumption that as a default racism is coming from one race of people.

As for whether or not it's classest, it's still a fact that the rich have more power and influence over the poor. And he exorcised that power to try and suppress the equal rights of others. It is not wrong or unreasonable for people who he tried to suppress, and those who are sympathetic, to not support his business endeavors as a result.

It doesnt really matter one lick here that people found it justified to let a whole company suffer because ONE GUY choose to exercise his free right to support whatever he believed in. Whether thats wrong or right is irrelevant if the actions taken in turn are just as vile as those who supported Prop-8.

No, boycotting Firefox is not "just as vile". Not supporting a business because of who they put in charge is not the same as seeking to suppress the rights of millions of people.

Prop-8 simply implied marriage in a church, not marriage in general which would be essentially civil unions.

No, it didn't. It said that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".
Marriage outside a Church is not "essentially a civil union" because a Civil Union is different legally. A Civil Union does not grant the same rights, protections and privileges. We tried "separate but equal" with the Jim Crow laws, it never works.

Prop 8 was about keeping gays from being married legally, not about protecting the right of churches to discriminate. Something which is already protected by our country's separation of Church and state.

Again, its the same as a restaurant refusing you service for being black, there is no law that you cant do that.

And as I showed you below, there is a law which says you can't do that.

Shall i link you to at least 5 30 minute youtube videos on the matter? Or do you wanna go look at it yourself instead?

And you think 530 youtube videos of people expressing their opinion represents everyone in the movement, or that it constitutes "endless hounding"?

No i described human nature. Just because you change a law doesnt mean humans will start acting differently. If the Law changed morality, well rape and murder wouldnt exist, now would they? Do you think the right to marry for gays will stop dumb people from "hating on fags"? No it wont.

It's not the aim of equal marriage to change the way people think, it's to ensure that LGBT people are treated equally under the law. Specifically in this case, that they can marry the person they love and receive the same legal benefits and obligations.

The law might, doesnt mean you cant still do it anyway. You are comparing theory against praxis. Just because the law exists doesnt mean People wont still do it.

And those people who do it risk being sued big time.

Oh it doesnt take away from those campaigns, but it implies that these problems are of the same value when they arent. Again some people thought that Gays shouldnt marry in a church, how is that the same as "corrective rape"? It fucking isnt.

Again it's not about being married in a Church specifically, it's about being treated equally under the law. And nobody so far as I know, has said Eich taking over Mozilla is the same as corrective rape. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem.

You've just proven your own point here? Thats exactly what i was getting at. SJW's have made character assassination an artform. What happens if you wrongly accuse someone of being a rapist? or a pedophile? or mysoginist? Regardless of it being false, this stigma, this reputation will cling to them forever and have consequences for their lives.

No one accused Eich of doing anything he didn't do. He chose to resign rather than apologize as Mozilla asked.

Marriage in a Church is not a right if the Church can dictate what they accept to begin with. Thats called religious freedom. We dont have to agree with them, but thats what it is. If you can still be married outside of a church then you have not lost any right to anything. Again, he believed they shouldnt, how does that make him homophobic? How does this justify ruining his reputation or that of his company?

Again, Prop 8 was about not allowing same sex marriages period. It wasn't about Churches in particular. And again, the separation of Church and state in America guarantees that Churches are still allowed to discriminate against anyone they wish. To provide an example I gave earlier. http://abcnews.go.com/US/kentucky-church-bans-interracial-couples/story?id=15065204

I think I've got it figured out guys.

You're only defending his action because it's Firefox. If this was EA, Zynga or King you'd be saying "good riddance".

Load of bollox.

I haven't used Firefox in four years but I still think that this is a load of petty bullshit.

Would you still say this was petty if he had donated that money to keep you from ever being able to legally marry the person you love? Would you want to support a company that put him as the head of it then?

 

[RaikuFA]

I think I've got it figured out guys.

You're only defending his action because it's Firefox. If this was EA, Zynga or King you'd be saying "good riddance".

Load of bollox.

I haven't used Firefox in four years but I still think that this is a load of petty bullshit.

I don't think so. If he apologized and then they still demanded he get out then I'd say its stupidt

 

[IceForce]

Groups like the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement (GLAAD)

Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, there is quite a difference.
Defamation is vilifying people through false statements, ironically what you have just done by replacing the word with "Disagreement".

Here's the Merriam Webster definition
Defamation: the act of saying false things in order to make people have a bad opinion of someone or something : the act of defaming someone or something.

Don't even bother.

That user has been corrected about that before, but to no avail.
They're deliberately using the wrong word there, just to be annoying.

 

[waj9876]

I myself am part of the LGBT community.

And I find this entire thing fucking disgusting. Congratulations, you've dug up something that happened six years ago, that has nothing at all to do with his job, and hounded him until he resigned. Fucking great everybody. Really showed him that we're great and understanding people whom would never stoop to the same lows other people have gone against us.

Here's something people don't seem to get. Just because someone has a view you disagree with, does not mean it's okay to ruin that person's life to make yourself feel better. (Yes, I realize he'll live a luxury-filled life regardless of this, but you get my point.) He donated a thousand dollars six years ago. He never expressed any hatred against gay people publicly, or privately. It's entirely possible that this had nothing to do with some hatred of gay people, and more to do with marriage itself. Hell, for all we know he just donated because that's what rich people do. Either way, we don't know for sure.

And if Eich didn't have a problem with us before, he sure as hell does now. And he might actually have a good reason. We cost him his job. Which is fucking terrible and disgusting, as the normal LGBT members will be blamed for what these people have done right along with them.

But nope, let's just assume that everything done in the past is an indication of their entire lives. Change is impossible. Everything has to be taken as the worst possible interpretation. "Thought police? That sounds like a dissenting opinion. MOB JUSTICE AWAY!~"

This has turned into outright hypocrisy. Congratulations, we're moving up in the world. In a few years, we might even be able to publicly discriminate against our own minority of scapegoats. Until they stand up for themselves and paint us as monsters. And the cycle will continue. (Yes, I'm exaggerating. No shit.)

Just...why couldn't we have handled this like rational adults?...Oh wait, mob justice, that's why.

 

[Ratty]

I myself am part of the LGBT community.

And I find this entire thing fucking disgusting. Congratulations, you've dug up something that happened six years ago, that has nothing at all to do with his job, and hounded him until he resigned. Fucking great everybody. Really showed him that we're great and understanding people whom would never stoop to the same lows other people have gone against us.

We boycotted a product for a few days. That's hardly "hounding".

Here's something people don't seem to get. Just because someone has a view you disagree with, does not mean it's okay to ruin that person's life to make yourself feel better. (Yes, I realize he'll live a luxury-filled life regardless of this, but you get my point.) He donated a thousand dollars six years ago. He never expressed any hatred against gay people publicly, or privately. It's entirely possible that this had nothing to do with some hatred of gay people, and more to do with marriage itself. Hell, for all we know he just donated because that's what rich people do. Either way, we don't know for sure.

He chose to resign rather than reach out publicly to the LGBT community in any way. Even to say "I'm sorry you disagree with me, but my views on marriage will not affect how I will treat people at my job." No, he just resigned. Actions speak louder than words. And if that doesn't speak volumes, I don't know what does.

Also, you and none of us know if he ever expressed a hatred for gays privately, because it was private. But that doesn't matter, the fact is he tried to keep people from having equal rights. LGBTs should not be shamed for then feeling disgusted with this man and not wanting to support his business ventures.

And if Eich didn't have a problem with us before, he sure as hell does now. And he might actually have a good reason. We cost him his job.

He resigned of his own free will. Apparently because he would rather do so than reach out to LGBTs with a word of kindness.

Which is fucking terrible and disgusting, as the normal LGBT members will be blamed for what these people have done right along with them.

Victim blaming happens. This man tried to suppress the rights of people, those people and those who are sympathetic to them then chose not to support a business which put that man at the head of it.

But nope, let's just assume that everything done in the past is an indication of their entire lives. Change is impossible. Everything has to be taken as the worst possible interpretation.

Again, his leaving the company was the result of his own choices, both in supporting Prop 8, and in failing to reach out to the LGBT community now.

This has turned into outright hypocrisy. Congratulations, we're moving up in the world. In a few years, we might even be able to publicly discriminate against our own minority of scapegoats. Until they stand up for themselves and paint us as monsters. And the cycle will continue. (Yes, I'm exaggerating. No shit.)

Just...why couldn't we have handled this like rational adults?...Oh wait, mob justice, that's why.

A boycott isn't handling it like rational adults? It's not like we egged his car and TP'd his house.

 

[waj9876]

I myself am part of the LGBT community.

And I find this entire thing fucking disgusting. Congratulations, you've dug up something that happened six years ago, that has nothing at all to do with his job, and hounded him until he resigned. Fucking great everybody. Really showed him that we're great and understanding people whom would never stoop to the same lows other people have gone against us.

We boycotted a product for a few days. That's hardly "hounding".

Here's something people don't seem to get. Just because someone has a view you disagree with, does not mean it's okay to ruin that person's life to make yourself feel better. (Yes, I realize he'll live a luxury-filled life regardless of this, but you get my point.) He donated a thousand dollars six years ago. He never expressed any hatred against gay people publicly, or privately. It's entirely possible that this had nothing to do with some hatred of gay people, and more to do with marriage itself. Hell, for all we know he just donated because that's what rich people do. Either way, we don't know for sure.

He chose to resign rather than reach out publicly to the LGBTs community in any way. Even to say "I'm sorry you disagree with me, but my views on marriage will not affect how I will treat people at my job." No, he just resigned. Actions speak louder than words. And if that doesn't speak volumes, I don't know what does.

Also, you and none of us know if he ever expressed a hatred for gays privately, because it was private. But that doesn't matter, the fact is he tried to keep people from having equal rights. LGBTs should not be shamed for then feeling disgusted with this man and not wanting to support his business ventures.

And if Eich didn't have a problem with us before, he sure as hell does now. And he might actually have a good reason. We cost him his job.

He resigned of his own free will. Apparently because he would rather do so than reach out to LGBTs with a word of kindness.

Which is fucking terrible and disgusting, as the normal LGBT members will be blamed for what these people have done right along with them.

Victim blaming happens. This man tried to suppress the rights of people, those people and those who are sympathetic to them then chose not to support a business which put that man at the head of it.

But nope, let's just assume that everything done in the past is an indication of their entire lives. Change is impossible. Everything has to be taken as the worst possible interpretation.

Again, his leaving the company was the result of his own choices, both in supporting Prop 8, and in failing to reach out to the LGBT community now.

This has turned into outright hypocrisy. Congratulations, we're moving up in the world. In a few years, we might even be able to publicly discriminate against our own minority of scapegoats. Until they stand up for themselves and paint us as monsters. And the cycle will continue. (Yes, I'm exaggerating. No shit.)

Just...why couldn't we have handled this like rational adults?...Oh wait, mob justice, that's why.

A boycott isn't handling it like rational adults? It's not like we egged his car and TP'd his house.

*sigh* Yeah, you're probably right. This has just left a bad taste in my mouth about how this makes the LGBT community look. And I needed to vent.

I still completely disagree with what was done...but yeah. You're right.

 

[Strazdas]

Well, seeing as it was the law that really is at the centre of the discussion, I'd argue the contents of it are vital to some people.

that may be true. however its as much irrlevant as bible being vita to some people when discussing evolution.

If I went into a bakery, and there was a gay baker there, and I didn't want to purchase a cake from him, there isn't a goddamn law in the land that could force me to. Likewise, if there is a company who is headed by an anti-gay individual, there's not a law in the land that could force me to use his products. That's freedom, and that's democratic.

Yes, you would be in a legal correct situation. and so would others for calling you a homophobe. The thing is not that they werent allowed to boycott the company, but that by doing that they only acted like irrational hypocrites which hurts their PR and personally made me rethink my support for these people whom i fully supported before.

I think that the actions of the staff (including firm Directors resigning for his appointment) also had a significant sway. I don't see how what OkCupid did wasn't beneficial to society. They didn't block access to Firefox users, they merely made users aware of something, and gave them the opportunity to react to that. It was people that made the decision to change browser, which I daresay many didn't.

Anyone who changed browser didn't do so because they *love* OkCupid, they did so because they reacted to his donation. He made that donation. If he didn't want to be associated with this donation, he shouldn't have made it.

The 2 board members that resigned did this because they wanted a CEO from the outsode of company. this has been covered but i can understand you not having time ot read the whole thread. it had NOTHING to do with his personal views. you dont have an argument there.

You guys keep saying that, but saying so doesn't make it so. Would "He made a bigoted decision and donation" be more to your palate? The facts are that he funded an anti gay proposition. He funded a prop that segregated people in society.

He made a donation from personal beliefs who may or may not be bigoted. If they were, he surely didnt show it in any other way, what with hiring gay people and whatnot. The law he donated to was bigoted, granted but thats as far as it goes. so if the law is the central point here, who not pick a much more deserving target, like, say, a guy that drafted the law to begin with? then again, according to other poster here there was persona attacks on other Prop8 supporters already, so the hate culture was already in effect.

Eh? There is no hypocrisy here. He did something, we did something, no laws were broken. The gay community felt the consequences of his donation, and he felt the consequences of our opinion on that. All balanced.

the hipocracy here is that people who fought for decades for not being persecuted for their opinion are now doing exactly that once they got powerful enough.

If he didn't believe it anymore, he could have just made a statement saying so and the backlash would have stopped immediately. The fact that he didn't do that indicates that he still holds that opinion.

No it does not. Silence does not mean admittance of guilt. he did not have to make any statement. he wasnt in the wrong for being good at his job and keeping his personal beliefs out of his work. Oh, and his personal beliefs? they are not your business

Not me. His employees.
Also, yeah, just as it's his right as a US citizen to donate to this organisation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
The fact that it's legal doesn't make it any less tasteless.

Si his employees were personally hurt by it? care to prove it? because all the evidence we got points to exactly opposite.
and yes, he has a right to donate to that. what about it?

https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/

I see. this was interesting read. i got to say he was making all the same points i was already making as well though.

Wait a minute... in what world is smoking a civil right?

in this world. the one you and i live in.

You're right, it isn't.

Wanna know about some people who DID demand he step down? His employees.
Now tell me, in what way is Eich a good CEO if his employees don't respect him?
Also, why would you want to work for someone who wants to deny you your civil rights?

well i guess we wont get very far then.
do you have any proof of his employees demanding him stepping down because of his personal beliefs? because he did not discriminate anyone at work.

See one big problem (With the majority of the posts here) is that they are generalizing and assuming that this is just because of the Prop 8 support. Take a few minutes and read a few other sources, any company that has half of its Board of Directors resign after he was appointed CEO has much more to do with him immediately resigning than the OKCupid post.

Source:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/28/three-mozilla-board-members-resign-over-choice-of-new-ceo/

you know why everyone assumes its because of prop8? because thats the only thing Eich has ever done that could be seen as against gays. As was mentioned MANY times over, the board members resigning had nothing to do with his personal views, but rather the board members personal views of CEO needing to be from outside the company. Also only 2 board members resigned because of him. the third one was going to retire either way and just wanted to wait till new CEO is in place.

People trying to make the world a less hateful place by being hateful and discriminatory= Horrible human beings who should be shamed if not shot and despoiled.

fixed this for you.

My money and speech divide is for a clear reason. But my line is etched in stone and crossed over the moment money is spent because I can't contribute or support someone who's going to use that to attack me.

i realize you are not going to change your mind about it. a shame considering its based on false perception of how campaigning works. for example i already crossed the line with this post, because i pay for internet, therefore i put money into making this opinion. and so did you.

Why are you lot still here when this site uses Javascript? Shouldn't you at least be downloading NoScript or something?

And before you ask me what I'm on about, look at the History section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript

how do you know they do not use noscript or other similar service? also do not advocate it here, its agianst forum rules actually because reasons. can get you warning.

snip

you have either severely misunderstood my position or are intentionaly twisting it to suit your purpose. its 8 am in the morning and i have no willpower to sort out which is it now.

 

[TheIceQueen]

My money and speech divide is for a clear reason. But my line is etched in stone and crossed over the moment money is spent because I can't contribute or support someone who's going to use that to attack me.

i realize you are not going to change your mind about it. a shame considering its based on false perception of how campaigning works. for example i already crossed the line with this post, because i pay for internet, therefore i put money into making this opinion. and so did you.

And if the university or the company that provides the internet for my university donated money to a cause that attacked my person, you can be absolutely sure that I would withdraw from here. It's as simple as that. Say what you want and/or spend whatever you want, but I'm not obligated to financially support a person who attacks me and I absolutely refuse to.

 

[Strazdas]

Ok. You would defend people who hate others for the color of their skin, their race, religion, or sexual orientation? And that's ok? Because freedom? I think your opinion is bad. Really bad. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to argue against me? I thought you would defend the opinions of others?

Face facts, some opinions are shit and can harm others. There's no good that can come from limiting the rights of people based on their sexual orientation and no amount of "traditional religious values" will persuade me. And just because he's never done anything to discriminate against his LBGT employees doesn't make his beliefs any better. A person isn't good just because they don't do bad things. I'm pretty sure that's something taught in the Bible

i would defend their right to have an opinion that does not necessarely coincide with majority. I would defend anyone for the right to his own opinion. and that also includes KKK now just as it would have included Martin Luther King when he was campaigning for it. See, i do not discriminate and tell people who can and cant have opinions or only what opinions are allowed. i believe in a right of people to have their opinions, even if those opinions are not useful for community as a whole.

You of course also have a right to think my opinion is bad. and thats completely fine. what happens is we simply disagree. what does not happen is i do not go after your workplace and start a campaign to get you fired.

have i made my position more clear?

snip

Just a token response not to look like i missed your post. you make sense, altrough dont do much point. sadly i do not have copies of the hatemail and cannot give them to you.

I think I've got it figured out guys.

You're only defending his action because it's Firefox. If this was EA, Zynga or King you'd be saying "good riddance".

Oh, look, more assumptions based on not actually reading the thread.

I know I've pretty well missed the whole conversation at this point, but I think you've made the most logical post of everyone, so you get a repost. And a sincere Thank You.

except that, he got things factually wrong. The board members resigned for completely different reasons, before this all happened. He is right that there were couple firefox employees on twitter blowing steam, after everyone jumped on the hate badnwagon.

"Eich only announced he was stepping down after it was revealed late Wednesday that he'd given money to Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign in 1992, and later to Ron Paul's campaign," wrote Signorile. "Suddenly, in addition to defending a CEO who gave money to homophobic efforts, Mozilla would have to defend a CEO who supported Buchanan, a far right extremist and isolationist who's been accused of racist and anti-Semitic attacks, and who also was, rightly, driven off MSNBC."

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

linky linky, we demand a linky

"We never expected this to get as big as it has and we never expected that Brendan wouldn?t make a simple statement," wrote Hampton and Michael Catlin in a Thursday blog post for their tech company Rarebit. "I met with Brendan and asked him to just apologize for the discrimination under the law that we faced. He can still keep his personal beliefs, but I wanted him to recognize that we faced real issues with immigration and say that he never intended to cause people problems. It?s heartbreaking to us that he was unwilling to say even that."

even more hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

are you just copying random text bits now?



P.S. hopefully moderators wont be angry for a doublepost, splitting it up should make it easier for people getting PMs about being quoted

 

[Vegosiux]

Except that the rights of the minority should not be up for a majority vote.

Ehhh, I see where you're coming from, I think, but how else are they going to be implemented? Also note that those rights are up for a "majority vote" every time we elect our next set of legislators anyway...

But seriously, if not through the democratic process, how else?

 

[Vegosiux]

Eich is a bigot

Believing marriage is between a man and a woman automatically makes you a bigot now?

Believing that some people don't deserve the same rights you have makes you a bigot, yes.

I'm sure even you could find a given value of "some" for which you'd agree that those people don't deserve to have the same rights you have. Not that I'm trying to be much of a smartass here or anything; it's just that what you said here is simply too vague to have any meaning at all (either that or it would make pretty much everyone a bigot by definition)

"Not allowing (or believing it shouldn't be allowed) people living in same-sex relationships to enjoy the same rights as the people in heterosexual ones makes you a bigot", now that's neatly specific.

 

[IceForce]

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement (GLAAD)

Why do you keep doing this?
You've been corrected multiple times now.

Why do you insist on being wilfully ignorant about the correct name of this group?

 

[shirkbot]

I think I've got it figured out guys.

You're only defending his action because it's Firefox. If this was EA, Zynga or King you'd be saying "good riddance".

Oh, look, more assumptions based on not actually reading the thread.

I know this isn't directed at me, but since I'm here can you cut Raiku a little slack? I didn't read the entire thread, and I don't expect most people to do so. It's quite lengthy and most of it doesn't really seem worth reading.

I know I've pretty well missed the whole conversation at this point, but I think you've made the most logical post of everyone, so you get a repost. And a sincere Thank You.

except that, he got things factually wrong. The board members resigned for completely different reasons, before this all happened. He is right that there were couple firefox employees on twitter blowing steam, after everyone jumped on the hate badnwagon.

Well then I'll simply ask of you what you're asking of others: Links or other convincing evidence. Our friend may or may not be correct but at this point it's strictly your yarn against theirs and I like theirs better. Fair?

 

[chikusho]

Not me. His employees.
Also, yeah, just as it's his right as a US citizen to donate to this organisation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
The fact that it's legal doesn't make it any less tasteless.

Si his employees were personally hurt by it? care to prove it? because all the evidence we got points to exactly opposite.
and yes, he has a right to donate to that. what about it?

So, what, you don't know nearly anything about this story?
The fact that a huge number of mozilla employees protested against him being appointed CEO should be a PRETTY CLEAR SIGN.
You're telling me you're just having this massive knee-jerk reaction without even bothering to find out what was actually going on?

Also, what's about it is that it's still a tasteless and inhumane thing to do. Did you really need that explained to you?

I see. this was interesting read. i got to say he was making all the same points i was already making as well though.

Exactly. Just about no points at all.

Wait a minute... in what world is smoking a civil right?

in this world. the one you and i live in.

I don't know where you would've gotten that idea. Civil rights protect you from being discriminated against on the basis of age, sex, race, weight, national origin and other attributes. Smoking is just a bad personal choice. And even if there ever was a parallell dimnesion where there once existed a right to smoke, you don't automatically have a right to smoke wherever you damn well please.

You're right, it isn't.

Wanna know about some people who DID demand he step down? His employees.
Now tell me, in what way is Eich a good CEO if his employees don't respect him?
Also, why would you want to work for someone who wants to deny you your civil rights?

well i guess we wont get very far then.
do you have any proof of his employees demanding him stepping down because of his personal beliefs? because he did not discriminate anyone at work.

This is mentioned in nearly every single story about this incident.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/mozilla-employees-to-brendan-eich-step-down/
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/disgruntled-employees-mount-twitter-uprising-2014-04-02
http://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/mozilla-employees-use-twitter-to-voice-dismay.html
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/541628/mozilla_employees_call_new_ceo_resignation/?utm_medium=rss&utm_source=tagfeed

you know why everyone assumes its because of prop8? because thats the only thing Eich has ever done that could be seen as against gays.

Yeah, the only thing he did was take an active stance against equal rights for over 3 million people. No biggie, right?

 

[Flatfrog]

Let me clear this right now. By using the information about a private donation to purposely harm another person, this is an attack on his character. This means that he can go after OkCupid for defamation of character. Wither it was intentional or not, this man lost his job due to their stance on HIS beliefs.

You can't call it defamation for someone to use true information about you and ask people to boycott your company because of it. People have every right to use their custom however and whyever they like (is whyever a word? I think it should be a word).

If he wasn't in fact a supporter of Prop 8, that would be a different matter. But you can't libel or defame someone with the truth.

By the way, everyone stop and think. Do you really think that you are going to change anyone's mind on something? Everyone is a stubborn mule who refuses to even think about something from the other side. I mean, everyone here is going to keep arguing no matter what so I might as well go sit back and watch the fore works.

Actually, I can't speak for anyone else, but my mind has been changed significantly many times as a result of other people's arguments. Also, I don't primarily take part in these discussions to change anyone else's mind but because I'm interested in working out what I think about it myself. Having other people challenge my opinions forces me to clarify them.