Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[RaikuFA]

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?

They're trying to get a rise out of people. Just ignore them and they'll go away.

 

[Flatfrog]

My point is words mean things. Our society defines marriage as including 1 man and 1 woman. If you want to join 2 men, or 2 women, or any combination of 3 or more, than please use a different word for it if for no other reason than for clarity's sake

I'm not going to get involved in this beyond one post because this thread is long and involved enough without turning it into a debate on gay marriage as well, but isn't it clearer to have fewer constraints on the meaning of the word rather than more? So 'a legal union between two people' is a nice, clear, easy to understand definition which doesn't require any further discussion. 'A legal union between two people, one of whom must be biologically male and the other biologocally female - codicil 1: transgendered MTF people are considered 'male' for the purposes of the Act; codicil 2: a person born hermaphroditic is considered 'female' for the purposes of the Act' etc - I make this up but you get my point.

Marriage is a legal term and we change the meanings of legal terms all the time.

 

[weirdee]

Been pulling the quotes from here:

http://www.advocate.com/business/technology/2014/04/04/was-mozilla-ceo%E2%80%99s-ouster-overreach-activists

I was focusing on the most pertinent statements though, that Eich either stepped down or was pressured by the Mozilla board of directors once it was starting to look like a pattern of supporting extremists, and that even though people in the company were willing to forgive him for making those donations (EMPHASIS ON THE DONATIONS, NOT NECESSARILY THE BELIEF) if he just acknowledged that supporting those types of people was wrong (regardless of his beliefs, the kind of tactics and legislation these groups promote are harmful) and that he didn't actually want to bring harm to people he didn't necessarily agree with, he chose to leave instead while he still could without actually addressing the issue.

How can anybody be the face of a company that promotes a more open society if after he leaves the office, he participates in promoting the destruction of their civil rights? Wouldn't this strike anybody as disingenuous? Who could possibly say that he's working in the interest of an open and inviting workplace if he supports groups that push laws that would make workplaces in other companies discriminatory? What, it doesn't count if it's not Mozilla or something? That would be like saying that those evangelists inciting homophobia in other countries that lead to the culture and laws that cause imprisonment and death are innocent because they're not doing it in the US.

 

[Verlander]

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.

I think this is what it boils down to - your belief that people fought for decades to not be persecuted for their opinions. This hasn't happened. People have fought for decades for equal treatment, true, but there's been no civil rights movement for "opinions" - freedom of opinion has been enshrined in US law and constitution since the US existed. Freedom of opinion was actually brought over by the British - the original pilgrims weren't escaping persecution, as the popular myth often states, but rather were trying to escape a nation which allowed freedom of religion to a country they could set up as a purely puritanical society. It obviously failed. Anyway, I digress...

 

[Ipsen]

You know what? I'll bite. In six years the average societal trend regarding homosexuality being evil or detracting from our society as a whole, has dramatically shifted in favor of homosexual beings being accepted as a normal thing and a large part of our collective make up. In six years we've gone from bigot statements being widespread on the basis of "Muh freedomz" to a man who worked hard stepping down as CEO for a bigoted statement he made when it was still normal to make, you guessed it, a bigoted statement. It's like holding something completely irrelevant to your business life against you because, again, "Muh Freezomz". It's a horrible world standard that we've seemingly come to not only expect, but openly embrace. Where if you were not as forward thinking as we are today any period of time in the past, you're a fucking useless worthless asshole. God help your soul. Because as we all know, no belief can ever be changed or altered, no one can ever be proven wrong and accept that defeat or have a change of heart. I'll let Tommy Lee Jones finish it off.

[youtube]jT6h2CUWLzQ[/youtube]

People change-but that doesn't matter, the man has a right to his beliefs, no matter how bigoted we might feel they are, they're his, he's just as protected by free speech as any other, it's not like he's on record of going to gay clubs and bashing them for their sexuality. There are far worse scenarios out there and nothing good has come of this situation, just a man who held a belief and lost what he probably desired for many years because Social Justice for the Win.

I think your chomp is misplaced; I don't think that's where the LGBT movement is at today. I'm under impression that they're still largely in the 'battle' phase. Sure, gay marriage is getting passed in an increasing amount of states, but considering the increasingly known abuse for those stereotyped or found as LGBT, those who stand organized for the movement aren't going to put up with the abuse, not from anyone, even if that's a CEO of an unrelated company who 'happened to' support screwing their way of life, or at least the choice to take a path in that direction. Though I've noticed that there's some segregation on the validity of this move.

I also don't buy the whole 'It was acceptable X years ago!' notion. YES, I hold people of the past accountable on terms of current cultural values, because our current cultural values aren't fucking rocket science to reach. Some enlightenment already readily available might have told the bastard parents who abandoned their children in the name of religion that that's a regrettable move. Hell, we STILL have problems in the present, so there's that too. But the people of the past and their ways are of the past; I have peace with them there, but NOT anywhere near the present.

Oh, I'm also under the impression that Eich could have just supported under the cap if he truly wanted a private position on the matter (though admittedly, perhaps the cap was not present/known of at the time of donation). But he didn't; he gave his $1k 'drop in the bucket', and that made his donation public. Didn't seem to bother Eich, however. Six years elapsed regardless, he had no statement either way on the matter stepping into the position. A matter that effects lives in and out of the business world. Either he renounced it, or he kept it, but apparently he didn't deem it important enough to address, even as a face of a large corporation. It's a personal belief, but Eich was in, well, a 'personal' position, as the percieved head of a business that effects many lives. There IS a connection.

On a somewhat separate note, I think we mix up what our 'Freezomz' (wat?) are. For one, 'Freedom of speech', and largely all of the protections to our rights from the Constitution are from a government perspective. It's the government that the Constitution protects your freedom of speech from, not necessarily other citizens. Surely, laws are in place that hinder or prevent, say, a person murdering you for your speech (and these laws go quite a bit farther than that to protect citizen livelihood), but largely, citizen vs. citizen, we end up having the right to demean or ruin each others' livelihoods (or at least something claimed to be livelihood).

Consider the capitalist nature of the country as well. Largely, this rule applies to the business world in this country as well. In the realm of 'freedom', business can do amazing, enlightening things, but they can also do terrible, depressing things too; ALL of this range fall as just (some limitations for the exploitive corners, of course) to this country's laws. So yea, when you (purportedly) slight a large amount of people and the law of the land doesn't step in, justice doesn't necessarily prevail (well, case of government is also potentially excluded too), but people's response nonetheless will. Business might most likely will get involved too.

 

[IceForce]

Our society defines marriage as including 1 man and 1 woman.

Errm, [citation needed]

And no, I don't consider religious texts to be valid citations.

Also, please be aware of the appeal to tradition logical fallacy.

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

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.

Here's an excerpt from an interview he had with CNET [http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-could-hurt-firefox-cause-q-a/], dated 1 April:

[blockquote]What message do you want to send to those who are asking for your resignation or for you to recant your earlier opposition to gay marriage?
Eich: Two things. One is -- without getting into my personal beliefs, which I separate from my Mozilla work -- when people learned of the donation, they felt pain. I saw that in friends' eyes, [friends] who are LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered]. I saw that in 2012. I am sorry for causing that pain.[/blockquote]

Here's a quote from his blog [https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/], dated 26 March:

[blockquote]A number of Mozillians, including LGBT individuals and allies, have stepped forward to offer guidance and assistance in this. I cannot thank you enough, and I ask for your ongoing help to make Mozilla a place of equality and welcome for all. Here are my commitments, and here's what you can expect:

-Active commitment to equality in everything we do, from employment to events to community-building.
-Working with LGBT communities and allies, to listen and learn what does and doesn't make Mozilla supportive and welcoming.
-My ongoing commitment to our Community Participation Guidelines, our inclusive health benefits, our anti-discrimination policies, and the spirit that underlies all of these.
-My personal commitment to work on new initiatives to reach out to those who feel excluded or who have been marginalized in ways that makes their contributing to Mozilla and to open source difficult. More on this last item below.

I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to "show, not tell"; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.[/blockquote]

Sincere question: does this change your view of him at all?

 

[CloudAtlas]

According to some folks here, publicly supporting discrimination of gays seems to be totally fine, but deciding to not use the products of someone who is publicly discriminating is not. Because clearly I'm free to be a bigot, but I'm not free to decide not to associate with a bigot. Because we all know that freedom of speech, of choice, of business and so on applies to some more than it does to others, right?

You just said it a lot better than I did. Great post.

Why thank you.

You know, threads like these, all these people heaping bile, people who "loose all respect for social justice warriors", who think it is "disgusting that gays force a homophobic CEO to step down", and so on... you find examples like these on every page of this thread... they really make want to not be a part of this community anymore.

Not only do they not understand how freedom of speech works, that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from response, which is rather telling for these people like to invoke freedom of speech everytime when there's some homophobic/mysogynist/racist/etc opinion under fire. They're also drawing false equivalencies all the time, as if not wanting to associate with people that discriminate against some group of people is just the same as the discriminating itself. Well, it isn't. Of course it isn't.
They're also misrepresenting the truth, as the only ones who maybe forced Eich to step down are the board of Mozilla themselves, and if you do that, your argument is probably weak from the start. Now, as this is a gaming website, that makes me wonder too why Mozilla bowing under market pressures in this way is such a horrible thing, but game developers always making games with straight white male characters because that's what the audience wants is totally cool, but I guess that's another topic.
I also have to assume that if people have such big problems with "social justice warriors" & friends, if they refer to them in such hateful ways, that they not only have a problem with the way some go about achieving their goals, but also with their goals themselves. Yea, sure, these movements have plenty of overzealous people, like many movements due - that's inevitable when people care deeply about something - but hate like this? No.
If you have such a problem with people fighting against homophobia/racism/sexism/etc, for equal rights for gays/people of color/women/etc, even if they do so in a way that you don't agree with, I have to assume that, if you're honest to yourself, you do have a problem with what they're fighting for, that you don't want these persons to be truly equal.


Edit: I am also a bit curious why there are so many of you people on the Escapist. I mean, the people behind the Escapist, like Jim Sterling, MovieBob, or Yatzee, they talk about social issues a lot, they constantly tell you how little they think of your opinions, yet you always return. But why? For the same masochistic desire that drives me to skim through threads like this one?

 

[IceForce]

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.

Really? Because I can't think of any

Prison inmates.

Prison inmates don't deserve the same rights as you or I, because by definition, they've lost their right to be free to walk the streets.

Are the rest of us all bigots because we don't want convicted criminals to have the same rights as us?

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Does anyone else find the "100 dollar donation" thing kinda funny? That's probably not even enough to buy them a billboard. I don't know like, the guy is a CEO of a company. It would be like if I tipped 10 dollars at a chik-fil-a or something.

Maybe the guy was a huge active bigot. If he was, then I'm glad he's gone. But really, a donation of such a (circumstances considered) menial amount of money 8 years ago? Even if he hasn't changed his opinion, maybe he's realized somewhere along the line in the last 8 years that his stance is antiquated and that he should keep it to himself. It's not like the guy was a politician or public activist. He was the CEO of a company that manages an internet browser. From what I can tell he wasn't even vocal about this either. It was apparently dug up in 2012, he took some heat from it and he probably learned his lesson. I really doubt he was harmful in any way.

I don't know to me it seems like this guy made one mistake years ago, and now he's being punished for something he maybe thinks but doesn't actively express.

 

[CloudAtlas]

OKCupid, denied the rights of it's own employees, by forcing every employee it had under it's paycheck to agree to attacking another particular company over a single individual, disregarding individual right and outlooks.

And you people say, all you are is defending the oppressed.

You just accepted anyone in OKC who might disagree with what has been done, and oppressed their rights. But I see what kind of people you are already. Well they can just quit. I know you will say that, because it is the kind of people you are.

Point out to me the constitutional or bill of rights that guarantees all the people in America a license to be married.

We'll talk more then.

You are aware that OKCupid is BY FAR not the only company that, as a company, takes some stance on certain social issues aren't you? Are all these companies "oppressing" their employes who might have different opinions?
In fact, probably about every major western company has a public policy that conflict the political views of white supremacists, of wannabe slaveholders, of hardcore mysogynists and antisemites, of communists, of jihadists, and many others. Are those people "oppressed" too?

And how much are companies supposed to accomodate the individual beliefs of its employes exactly, in your opinion? Would a company still "oppress" my rights if my boss told me that I shouldn't sexually harass my female co-workers and have to serve black customers too?

And what about gays themselves? If the official company policy is NOT "we support equality regardless of gender, sexual orientation etc etc", doesn't that mean that this company is in favour of discrimination of gays, and thus "oppressing" the individual rights of their gay employees?


I can't shake the feeling that you only really care about a certain group of beliefs being "oppressed".

 

[ToastiestZombie]

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.

How do I know? Because I just checked the page source and pretty much the entire website hangs on the user using Javascript. The only site I know of that doesn't use Javascript is Craiglist, and if you looked at that site you'd see a prime example of how basic a site is when you don't use it. And how am I advocating, shouldn't people boycotting Firefox also boycott the script that Eich invented and is most likely still profiting on? You shouldn't pick and choose when boycotting, especially when you're so mad that you block your Javascript-run website to Firefox users.

 

[Bombiz]

Does this mean i can use FireFox with out looking like a bigot or do I look like on just by saying that?
Meh. I guess I'll try opera 12. heard good things about it.

 

[tmande2nd]

Hey guys what is the forum doi-

Oh well I see...well I will leave you to this since I have no horse in this race.
Still quite amusing to note the butthurt howling on the new over this.

 

[LostCrusader]

I think its really weird that the people at OkCupid cared that much about a $1000 donation to protest about it, and even more amazed that Firefox or their CEO cared enough to do anything about it.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

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.

It isn't meaningless to show that funding anti-LGBT laws will be frowned upon and even economically punished.

It isn't meaningless to show that funding pro-LGBT laws will be frowned upon and even economically punished.

Oh wait, yes it is. And so is your example. Argue all you want, but when someone makes a private donation to something THEY believe, they are allowed to have their job, money and source of income removed along with a torrent of hate for doing so?

What would happen if say... Bill Gates funded a program just to use science to point out and poke holes in religion and the bible, leading to the removal of church benefits and so on. (Note: have no clue if he is atheist or religous etc., he was just the first person in mind). Those are anti-religious beliefs, yet should he be thrown from his position because of them? It is not the company doing so, but Bill himself, so why should his job and such be threatened.

If you have ever played or seen Bioshock Infinite, I'd like to bring up Daisy Fitsroy. Before they went back on it in Burial at Sea Part 2, she was a big leader of a rebellion against crazy bible thumping upper classers. However, when, at one point, the main character Booker ends up in a situation where he sacrificed himself for the rebellion (there by becoming a massive martyr and a symbol for the rebellion) and returned to her, alive, she says that he simply complicates the story of Booker and opts to kill him instead of, you know, saying hi.

Basically, even though the rebellion is a good thing, she is so far into it that she opts to murder someone instead of complicating the rebellions symbol. If we say the Rebellion is Left and the Uppers are Right, she is the perfect example of too far. She went FAR too far to the left, and as such even though she was doing it for a good cause, she was doing a bad thing.

That is literally what has happened here. The man made a private donation 6 years ago of a tiny amount to something he personally believed in, and people found it, exposed it to the internet (and no doubt Tumblr) and had a field day with it. Disagree with him as you may, but do not ruin his career, which has nothing to do with it. I don't see any reason why someone couldn't fund a program to convince the world to outlaw hetrosexual marriage, so why can't he? I know, it's fucking horrible, but that's why it failed. If there was actually enough support for it, then it would have happened. That's kind of the way this world works, you know, voting?

So instead of trying to mob him and ruin his career, oppose the program itself and then you will actually achieve something? But there's no point now, because it was SIX YEARS ago and the program has already failed, leaving the internet to simply hack at what remains.

 

[anthony87]

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

You mean an apology like this taken from a recent interview?

What message do you want to send to those who are asking for your resignation or for you to recant your earlier opposition to gay marriage?
Eich: Two things. One is -- without getting into my personal beliefs, which I separate from my Mozilla work -- when people learned of the donation, they felt pain. I saw that in friends' eyes, [friends] who are LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered]. I saw that in 2012. I am sorry for causing that pain.

Or how about this?

A number of Mozillians, including LGBT individuals and allies, have stepped forward to offer guidance and assistance in this. I cannot thank you enough, and I ask for your ongoing help to make Mozilla a place of equality and welcome for all. Here are my commitments, and here's what you can expect:

-Active commitment to equality in everything we do, from employment to events to community-building.
-Working with LGBT communities and allies, to listen and learn what does and doesn't make Mozilla supportive and welcoming.
-My ongoing commitment to our Community Participation Guidelines, our inclusive health benefits, our anti-discrimination policies, and the spirit that underlies all of these.
-My personal commitment to work on new initiatives to reach out to those who feel excluded or who have been marginalized in ways that makes their contributing to Mozilla and to open source difficult. More on this last item below.

I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to "show, not tell"; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.

Man...what an asshole eh?

(Many thanks to ThatDarnCoyote for providing this info)

 

[IceForce]

Are the rest of us all bigots because we don't want convicted criminals to have the same rights as us?

Comparing convicted criminals to gays?
Such logic. Wow.

This thread is a cesspool of bigotry.

I don't remember doing any such thing.

Please point out where I did this. Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

[Ratty]

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?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it - The United States Declaration of Independence.


You can't say "We're all equal... except for that group right over there, and that group. Oh and that one. Otherwise we're totally equal."[footnote]Or as George Orwell put it at the end of Animal Farm "All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others."[/footnote] we've been slowly working towards truer equality throughout US history. It's been a very rocky road with lots of ups and downs, but we're getting there.

We've had the abolition of slavery, then securing women's rights, racial minority rights and now gay rights. This is achieved partly through governmental regulation to ensure that all people are treated equally under the law, and easing prejudices in subsequent generations thereafter. A lot of the things that appall us, like racial segregation, were "just the way things are" for entire generations of the majority which grew up with them, until some people stood up and changed the laws and the culture to be truer to the American ideals of equality and liberty.

Prison inmates.

Prison inmates don't deserve the same rights as you or I, because by definition, they've lost their right to be free to walk the streets.

Are the rest of us all bigots because we don't want convicted criminals to have the same rights as us?

Yes, but (at least in theory) prison inmates can be anyone. It's not, or shouldn't be, tied to choices you make that don't hurt anyone. To your personal beliefs or genetic make up, but rather dependent upon what you do/did as an individual that hurt people. It's still bullshit that felons lose the right to vote though.

SNIP

You still never answered my question of whether you would think it was petty to hold his contribution against him if he had been trying to take away your right to marry.

Sincere question: does this change your view of him at all?

Yes, I am very sorry he did not issue more statements like this so everyone could see them rather than resigning. I'm a believer in forgiveness when possible, because life is too short to hold on to hatred. And everyone makes mistakes.
I am glad he was able to see the pain he had caused and tried to apologize, I'm just sorry he gave up rather than try again when this came to national attention. In that way he not only let himself be hurt, but for the movement towards equality to be hurt as well. It is a shame.

 

[Darmani]

Alright, good to see public shaming can encourage discriminatory hiring practices in the work place. 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.

Yay, fight to end discrimination by encouraging discrimination.

I think a wealthy, lettered, white man leaving under a cloud of political compromise as to actual misconduct or failure isn't going to die penniless. I'm not sure how to feel about this BUT he did publically support a campaign against gay rights and equality.. .and lost. Part of the fallout from that is the VALID boycotting of his products to force societal recognition of the values people want promoted.

Same as when OSC was ragged for being a writer on Superman. OR Mel Gibson lost support for his anti-semitism.

Or do you think there is some debate to be had for the public acknowledgement or endorsement of homosexual men and women's fair treatment under law and in general by society. Protest IS legal and laudable means of social change. certainly versus the alternatives. We can't villainize the participants for engaging in the process.