Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[Carnagath]

In fact, probably about every major western company has a public policy that conflict the political views of [...] communists[...]

Oh dear God, this thread is absolutely hilarious On topic, I think that this was brilliant promotion on behalf of OKCupid, it brought them a pretty good amount of brand recognition for no cost. LGBT couch activists jumped on it because they want to do something, just not something too hard or inconvenient. The CEO caved and I find that natural, when you are hurting your company you tend to lose support pretty fast.

 

[anthony87]

snip

"Still"? I don't think I've ever spoken to you before, unless I missed a quote somewhere along the way.

Anyways, yeah. Considering the pittance of the donation, how long ago it was and the fact that he apologised I'd think the whole thing is incredibly petty even if it was my right to marry that was being taken away.

But hey, that's just me. I'm a "bigger fish" kinda guy.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I just want to point out to all the people who say "Well, he could have just reached out with words to the LGBT community"...that wouldn't have done any good, most likely. People would probably just reject the apology, saying "Well, of course he'd say that. He's just covering his own ass. He doesn't really mean it," and continue with the boycott.

Am I saying that he took the right method in resigning without at least trying to apologize? Hell, no. You should always do lesser damage control before you go for the "burning bridges" method. But don't act like an apology would automatically ensure his problems would stop.

 

[Signa]

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's just so petty. Such a groundswell of anger and blatant self promotion from some sites for what? You got a man fired by throwing a little shit-fit. Good work, you changed the world. I'm sure they will make an inspirational movie about the time the bloggoshpere of Social Justice Warriors assembled and rid a medium sized tech firm of a man who once made a donation. Brendan Eich isn't exactly stood outside of an Elton John show with a "God hates fags" sign, he's not an evangelical missionary trying to get Gay people put to death in Africa

You want to get some deserved righteous anger going? Go and watch "God loves Uganda" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3_hKv4pEM4], go and protest Saudi Arabia or Russia. Go and do anything that takes an ounce of balls you safe, petty little Social Justice warrior circle-jerk.

Exactly. Remind me again how this wasn't cyberbullying? You know, that other thing that people like to feel good to rally against? I'm not a fan of this guy, but he's just as entitled to his opinions as much as you and I. I'm also certain that none of this has made him feel better about the LGBT community.

 

[anthony87]

Man...what an asshole eh?

Well sure the apology was nice and all but I think they were all in an uproar over some of his previous comments years before where he said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." and another quote where he went on to say "I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture." . . . . . . .


Hold on. What's that? Oh, Brendan Eich didn't say those things? Really? Well we better get to finding out who did so we can drive that bigoted asshole from his job next. Sharpen up those pitchforks fellas! We are going to find out who the gay hating bigot was who said those things and we are going to make sure that sick bastard never works again!

I'll bite....who said that?

 

[Vegosiux]

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.

I get that. What I mean is that all of that came through because it eventually passed a kind of a "majority vote", because the social consensus shifted so that the majority of people accepted all those things. Not because it was forced one-sidedly on them.

And let me just say that if we take the most literal meaning of "majority vote", a referendum, yes, there are so many tricks with that it makes your head explode. A few years ago we had a referendum on something where you had to vote against if you supported what the referendum was about, because the question was phrased that way.

 

[hazydawn]

I don't remember doing any such thing.

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

Someone was asking for an example of a group of people who don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us.
You give the example of convicted criminals.
And then you ask that question: "Are the rest of us all bigots because we don't want convicted criminals to have the same rights as us?"
You don't see how I could come to this conclusion? Especially giving the context of this discussion? Your phrasing is very odd and implies it to me. But, very well. If I interpreted too much into your comment and all you wanted to point out was that there is one such group, namely convicted criminals, then I was wrong. Just answer this question. Do you think that gays should have any less rights than the rest of us (including marriage)? If your answer is "no", then you have my apology.

 

[Vegosiux]

Someone was asking for an example of a group of people who don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us.
You give the example of convicted criminals.
And then you ask that question: "Are the rest of us all bigots because we don't want convicted criminals to have the same rights as us?"
You don't see how I could come to this conclusion? Especially giving the context of this discussion? Your phrasing is very odd and implies it to me. But, very well. If I interpreted too much into your comment and all you wanted to point out was that there is one such group, namely convicted criminals, then I was wrong. Just answer this question. Do you think that gays should have any less rights than the rest of us (including marriage)? If your answer is "no", then you have my apology.

No, actually I have to hand it to IceForce on this one, and I think I better drop in since I started that entire line of conversation in the first place.

The argument I, and later, IceForce, responded to was "If you believe some people shouldn't have the same rights as you, then you're a bigot". Then I pointed out that with a certain value of "some people" that's true for everyone, and everyone can find a certain value of "some" they'd think those people shouldn't have the same rights. Then I actually went ahead to make a neatly more specific statement that maybe didn't look so "morally superior", but sure as hell is a lot more practical to apply. Really, just look back through the thread, everything should be on the previous page.

Going on; then Trilligan responded, that they see no such "some people". At which point IceForce dropped in, that "convicted criminals" are "some people" that forfeited some of the rights the rest of us enjoy.

Now; unless you agree that "convicted criminals" are "some people", I'm going to tell you to go look at a dictionary. That was my entire point. The argument of "If you believe some people shouldn't have the same rights as you, then you're a bigot" is so vague it's utterly meaningless, because you can pick any set of people and they will qualify as "some people".

Your post looks to me as if you missed that first part.

 

[Vegosiux]

Thing is, he did apologize, 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]

"Oh, but nobody ever does anything serious on 1st April, he's just messing with us, cause he's scum!"

Seriously, calling it. Likely it already happened on Tumblr somewhere.

 

[Something Amyss]

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

You're a libertarian and have no opinion on whether civil liberties should be up fr popular vote?

That baffles me slightly. Aren't libertarians supposed to be about personal freedom? Armchair or otherwise?

Should or shouldn't doesn't matter

It does when we're in the realm of people speaking about what should or shouldn't be done. That was where you came in, by the way, so you're completely ignoring the context of my question to offer up a statement of its irrelevance. And I guess that's fine, but you're not addressing things on the same plane as I was, which makes it pointless.

 

[EiMitch]

Okey-dokey, this is my second post since I said I was done with this topic. I acknowledge the irony. With that out of the way, I've got something a bit different to say. This thread has gotten ugly, and I won't deny I contributed to that. But I've come back to extend an olive branch. A middle-ground that is sensible, fair, and objective. Assuming, that is, that this really is about Eich stepping down from Mozilla, rather than an excuse to bash LGBTs.

Here's how it goes:

Do acknowledge that Eich was an instrumental employee of Mozilla, and Mozilla might be worse off without his expertise.
Don't pretend Eich did nothing wrong by contributing to the passage of prop 8.
Do acknowledge that there is no evidence of Eich engaging in discriminatory practices as part of Mozilla.
Don't demonize protestors for protesting, nor OkCupid for pointing out the skeleton in Eich's closet.
Do acknowledge that LGBTs had a legitimate bone to pick with Eich.
Do lament that there might've been another possible resolution that could've been amicable to both sides.

Do you see where I'm going with this? You don't have to couch a defense of Eich in the reverse-victim bs social-conservatives push. You can lament Mozilla losing him without the hypocrisy, nay the Orwellian subversiveness, of decrying protesting as a form of persecution while insisting that (providing material aid to) a discriminatory law somehow isn't a form of persecution. You can argue one without arguing the other.

Is this not an acceptable half-way point to meet?

 

[wulf3n]

Is this not an acceptable half-way point to meet?

Yes except for:

Don't demonize protestors for protesting, nor OkCupid for pointing out the skeleton in Eich's closet.

I will always demonize those who are willing to punish innocent people to get at a single person. Had they just been protesting Eich there would be no problem, but given their actions were also threatening to put another 600+ people out of work, I will very much demonize that action.

 

[wulf3n]

Since Mozilla's supposed to be pretty big on the whole equal rights thing, concerns over someone opposed to equal rights being appointed the head of the company seem warranted and reasonable, regardless of how professional he might act at work.

But the action itself is anti equal rights. Just because a person doesn't believe everyone should have equal rights does not mean they are not entitled to equal rights by those that do.

In a nutshell If you believe in equal rights, those rights extend to all, even those that don't believe in equal rights. Otherwise you don't really believe in equal rights. Just rights for a different set of people.

 

[Vegosiux]

It does when we're in the realm of people speaking about what should or shouldn't be done. That was where you came in, by the way, so you're completely ignoring the context of my question to offer up a statement of its irrelevance. And I guess that's fine, but you're not addressing things on the same plane as I was, which makes it pointless.

Myes, well, the rest of my post (the part you left out) elaborates on my point that civil rights are up for popular vote every election and stuff, and unless you're arguing against the democratic process itself, then you have to accept that.

Now, if you do want to argue against the democratic process, be my guest, I'm not really in the mood to defend it with any kind of zealotry. But within the system we currently have, that's the way it's working.

See, that's not me saying "It's the way it is." It's me saying "It's the way it is currently, but if you want to overhaul the system to be more just, I'm actually going to support that. Just put some concrete suggestions on the table so that I can see what you're actually proposing, because only proposing 'something other than what we have now' is a tad too vague for me."

 

[Flatfrog]

And I still stand by my original point (I've had a chance to sleep on it and I've gone over it in my head quite a few times), that there is a major difference between boycotting a product because someone is gay and boycotting a product because you disagree with someone's political or ethical position. And the fact that people in large numbers are standing against a discriminatory position is progress in my book.

There's absolutely no difference between them whatsoever, and it takes an awful lot of mental gymnastics to pretend otherwise. In both scenarios, a single solitary social issue is the driving force between telling someone "you have the job" and "you're fired". It's discriminatory in both cases, because it violates the individual's right to express their own opinion.

There is a huge difference. Being gay is something you are, whereas supporting a political issue is something you do. I can disagree with your politics, I can't disagree with your race, gender or sexual orientation.

(Having said that: when discussing this with my daughter, she was in agreement with me so I argued the other side, and I pointed out that an interesting parallel would be boycotting a company because its boss was a particular religion. Religion seems to me to be right on the borderline between something you are and something you do, and I'd certainly be a lot less comfortable with someone calling for a boycott of a product because its CEO was a Muslim!)

I'd also take issue with your use of the words 'discrimination' or 'firing someone' to describe what went on here. A boycott, whatever its rightness or wrongness, is not discrimination or firing anyone. It is a public statement of disapproval for a company's actions, in this case the appointment of a particular CEO. It's up to the company to decide what to do about it. In my opinion, the guy's resignation was so sudden, it says to me that there's a lot more to this story than a few people protesting about a Prop8 donation.

Just to return to my earler analogy: if I discovered my local cafe owner was a neo-Nazi and I stopped eating there, that isn't 'discrimination' against him, neither is it saying 'you're fired' to him. It's just saying 'I don't want any of my money going to support a cause I dislike'. And if I go on to suggest the same thing to my friends, or even went so far as to protest outside the building, that would still be a perfectly legitimate action on my part. What's more, that would be true even if the cafe itself was perfectly respectable, had non-discriminatory hiring policies and only served fairtrade coffee.

 

[wulf3n]

Just to return to my earler analogy: if I discovered my local cafe owner was a neo-Nazi and I stopped eating there, that isn't 'discrimination' against him

What about if he was Gay and you stopped eating there because of it? Or perhaps he was Jewish or Muslim?

edit:

The worrying opinion resonating through this thread is "It's not discrimination if I don't like the person"

 

[EiMitch]

I will always demonize those who are willing to punish innocent people to get at a single person. Had they just been protesting Eich there would be no problem, but given their actions were also threatening to put another 600+ people out of work, I will very much demonize that action.

So do you also demonize every last single boycott and protest of corporations ever? If not, then you're just rationalizing a double-standard. There are always innocent employees caught in every protest against a company. For the sake of logical consistency, you'd have to condemn the very idea of mass protest at its root. That's what you're ultimately demonizing.

 

[wulf3n]

So do you also demonize every last single boycott and protest of corporations ever?

No. Far from it. Boycotting a product/company because of the product/company itself is rational. Boycotting a Company because of a single person within it who is not pushing their questionable beliefs onto the company not so much.

Boycotting a company because it uses 3rd world sweatshops: Fine.
Boycotting a company because they refuse to serve people of certain faiths/ethnicity/Sexual Preferences: Fine.
Boycotting a company because the person in charge does something you don't like completely separate from the company itself: Not fine.

That's not to say people aren't allowed to do it. I just consider it immoral.

 

[Flatfrog]

Just to return to my earler analogy: if I discovered my local cafe owner was a neo-Nazi and I stopped eating there, that isn't 'discrimination' against him

What about if he was Gay and you stopped eating there because of it? Or perhaps he was Jewish or Muslim?

edit:

The worrying opinion resonating through this thread is "It's not discrimination if I don't like the person"

Well, as I say, there's a difference between disliking someone for their opinions and disliking them for who they are (and as I said, I think religion is on an uncomfortable borderline between the two). Having said that, frankly, I can choose where I shop for whatever reason I like, however bigoted - and you can choose to like or dislike me accordingly too! What else do we have to go on?

 

[Flatfrog]

So do you also demonize every last single boycott and protest of corporations ever?

No. Far from it. Boycotting a product/company because of the product/company itself is rational. Boycotting a Company because of a single person within it who is not pushing their questionable beliefs onto the company not so much.

Boycotting a company because it uses 3rd world sweatshops: Fine.
Boycotting a company because they refuse to serve people of certain faiths/ethnicity/Sexual Preferences: Fine.
Boycotting a company because the person in charge does something you don't like completely separate from the company itself: Not fine.

That's not to say people aren't allowed to do it. I just consider it immoral.

But isn't the action of appointing a new CEO in itself an action of a company which you can approve or disapprove of?