Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[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?

 

[Ratty]

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.

Yeah you missed a quote, but fair enough.

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.

Yep. And this boycott was the result of the turning tide of popular opinion.

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.

Politicians, what can you say?

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"

Being gay is not a choice. Religious affiliation is usually something taken up because it's something that the parents and/or culture at large thrust upon a child while they're growing up. So in a sense religion is often not a choice either, or at least a conscious choice. Racism is something that's a lot more necessarily harmful and challenged in today's world. To be an outspoken racist, or any kind of bigot really, takes commitment and conscious effort.

 

[Flatfrog]

He wasn't CEO long enough for any actual "impact" to be measured, but I somewhat doubt that the number of Mozilla users within the short time span between when he took the job and when he left dropped by nearly enough of a margin to justify this move.

Thinking some more about this (while I was washing dishes) I think actually you're underestimating the potential harm of this to a company like Mozilla.

In the world of browsers, these days we're essentially dealing with a bunch of almost indistinguishable, free products. In that context, pretty much the only thing that affects people's decision of which one to use is branding. Firefox has maintained its fairly fragile position in that marketplace through being perceived by its adherents as 'the good guy' in a world of bigger players. I think anything that threatens that brand is potentially very damaging indeed.

 

[wulf3n]

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?

You're certainly free to do that. I'm just trying to show how similar the two situations are, and that true equality extends to all, not just those we like.

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

Of course. The issue here is acting as though that is not a discriminatory act, as the disapproval is not based on his ability to do the job, or the direction he intends to take the company, it's based on the beliefs he has every right to, right or wrong.

This is no better than boycotting someone because of their religion, or because they play video games in their spare time.

 

[monkey_man]

I'm still constantly amazed when people try to be public figures AND be vocal about their controversial opinions. When has that ever worked out for someone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point is, in the Bible, the sacred book of contradictions, it's not really written that marriage is between a man and a woman. There are plenty cases of marriage between a man and his several wives, or slaves forced to marry other slaves. Besides, marriage isn't just a religious thing, it hasn't been for a long time. I don't think it's fair that you would try and take marriage away from a large chunk of people. If you call it different, it's by norm actually different. It would be second hand. If you'd have the "gay marriage" it would become lesser than regular marriage, and it would certainly show. If it's no problem for LGBT people to get married, but you don't want them in YOUR type of marriage, that shows that there's still unacceptance. And if you donate a thousand bucks to try and make it happen, while insisting there isn't a problem with the LGBT crowd, you're a hypocrite, and as a public figure, which he just happens to be, you simply can't do that. The common redneck isn't shown on tv (not usually anyways) because it's not really relevant what they think. They are the faceless mass, like so many others. If you have a face, you have a rank, and people will treat you according to the benefits and the demerits of having such a rank. Opinions are among them.

 

[wulf3n]

Being gay is not a choice. Religious affiliation is usually something taken up because it's something that the parents and/or culture at large thrust upon a child while they're growing up. So in a sense religion is often not a choice either, or at least a conscious choice. Racism is something that's a lot more necessarily harmful and challenged in today's world. To be an outspoken racist, or any kind of bigot really, takes commitment and conscious effort.

I don't really see why something being a "choice" matters. Even if being homosexual were a choice, it would still be perfectly fine to be so, and it would still be bad if said person were discriminated against because of that choice.

People are free to make whatever choices they want provided they fall within the law, and should not be persecuted because of it, regardless of our opinion on their choice.

 

[CloudAtlas]

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.

MORE of this IF YOUR NOT 100% with us you are a bigot and, homophobic trash talk

Yea... no. More like "if you are 0% with us then maybe you really are against us". Now I don't know about you, but I doubt it is that ridiculous to assume that if you so fervently loathe certain people who care deeply about a certain issue, then that might have to do something with your views about said issue.