Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[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.

 

[CloudAtlas]

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"

Not really. To boycott people who discriminate against you (or others) is not the same thing as those people discriminating against you in the first place. You just don't want to associate with people who seek to make your life miserable without you ever having done anything to them.

I mean, that would be like saying, well, Nazis hate Jews, Jews hate Nazis, so both hate each other, let's call it even - entirely disregarding that the latter only dislike the former because they (quite understandably if you ask me) do not wish to be exterminated. Now the stakes are generally not that high in the case of gays (at least not generally the West - in other places, they are), but the principle is the same.

 

[wulf3n]

Not really. To boycott people who discriminate against you (or others) is not the same thing as those people discriminating against you in the first place. You just don't want to associate with people who seek to make your life miserable without you ever having done anything to them.

I mean, that would be like saying, well, Nazis hate Jews, Jews hate Nazis, so both hate each other, let's call it even - entirely disregarding that the latter only dislike the former because they (quite understandably if you ask me) do not wish to be exterminated. Now the stakes are generally not that high in the case of gays (at least not generally the West - in other places, they are), but the principle is the same.

Discrimination is Discrimination, whatever excuse you try to use to justify it to yourself.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Not really. To boycott people who discriminate against you (or others) is not the same thing as those people discriminating against you in the first place. You just don't want to associate with people who seek to make your life miserable without you ever having done anything to them.

I mean, that would be like saying, well, Nazis hate Jews, Jews hate Nazis, so both hate each other, let's call it even - entirely disregarding that the latter only dislike the former because they (quite understandably if you ask me) do not wish to be exterminated. Now the stakes are generally not that high in the case of gays (at least not generally the West - in other places, they are), but the principle is the same.

Discrimination is Discrimination, whatever excuse you try to use to justify it to yourself.

I don't care about your definitions, I care about meanings. And in this regard, whether you want to call them both discrimination or not, they simply aren't the same thing - and that is exactly what I said, and all that I said.

I mean, you can't honestly believe that hating someone because of his ethnicity/religion/gender/sexual orientation/etc is morally equivalent to the desire of these persons not to be hated, disadvantaged, or worse, nor is acting on these respective beliefs.

 

[EiMitch]

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.

So its okay to protest and put innocent employees jobs on the line so long as you approve of the cause.

At least you distinguished between the right to protest and your personal approval of it. But its still hypocrisy.

Then...don't shop there. The problem is easily solved without any sort of 'battle' whatsoever. What people chose to do instead was not only to drop their own support but to force their users to drop support of the browser as well.

OkCupid didn't force anyone. They inconvenienced users a moment to ask them to stop using Firefox. The choice was up to the user.

And yet it's most definitely considered discriminatory if you were to stop eating at a place because the owner is Jewish, which is absolutely something he can "control" and is entirely based on his personal system of beliefs. So it's only not discrimination if it's something you find abhorrent?

Are you equating religion with past actions? Discriminating against someone for their faith isn't the same as "discriminating" against someone for discriminating against others. Equivocation FAIL.

Then again, context has always been the enemy of the reverse-victim mentality.

 

[wulf3n]

I don't care about your definitions

Then why bother responding? If you feel your opinion is the right one, and don't care about my opinion why waste both our times?

I mean, you can't honestly believe that hating someone because of his ethnicity/religion/gender/sexual orientation/etc is morally equivalent to the desire of these persons not to be hated, disadvantaged, or worse, nor is acting on these respective beliefs.

I believe hating others because they hate me serves no real purpose. I understand what it's like to be hated, I don't want to be hated, as such I won't hate others. I'll hate their opinions, but not them.

So its okay to protest and put innocent employees jobs on the line so long as you approve of the cause.

Well it all depends on your definition of innocent. If the company you work for actively hurts/persecutes others and you're aware of it then you bear some of the responsibility. If someone in your company is a bigoted asshole you don't.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

snip

I never held his beliefs against him. Do I agree with what he did? No. But I didn't see what it had to do with him having a job he was highly qualified for, and I see the fact that he felt pressured to resign a bit sad.

By the way, I'm bi. Just throwing it out there to try to ward off potential "you're just a homophobe and don't want to admit it" card-playing. I can see the irritation towards him, but if every person could be blocked from raising up in ranks for something they did six years ago, there would be no CEOs at all.

To answer your question: the fact that he apologized, and it got totally ignored for the sake of continuing the boycott and celebrating his resignation, kinda proves my point. People doing the boycott didn't want an apology. They wanted him gone.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Because black-listing has a long and proven track history of working out perfectly for those ideologies which practice it. Oh wait, that's the complete exact opposite of what actually happens.

Keep up the spas-tastic work, Social Justice Internet warriors! With friends like you, who needs enemies anymore?

 

[hazydawn]

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

Yeah, I did. Thanks for bringing clarity... in such detail >.<
All right. I apologize. My bad

 

[V8 Ninja]

So...people are defending a bigot.

Spoiler: MAJOR CLARIFICATION

EDIT: As some pointed out, "Defending A Bigot" is not exactly an accurate representation of what people are saying. I mixed my general statement with something that's more complicated. Looking over lots of comments again, it appears the closest thing I can say is that people are defending the right for a bigot to be converted by understanding rather than rejection. Then again, I also see lots of those comments as people defending the ability for a bigot to have a high-paying job, a sentiment which doesn't sit well with me. Nevertheless, I apologize for generalizing the point to a single phrase that inaccurately depicted the majority opinion of one side of this argument. My stance on this, however, has not changed.

Well, that's something I didn't expect to see on these forums.

As for my opinions on this topic;

Spoiler: My Opinions

While this can certainly be called discrimination of some kind and I'm all for making people understand the issues at hand rather than outright rejecting their viewpoints, Flatfrog made a very good distinction [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.846451.20870371] between intolerance and intolerance of intolerance. Ultimately they're the same thing (not considering the viewpoints of others), but an extreme rooted in rationality is being used to combat an extreme rooted in extremism. Ultimately, I would say that this is a net positive.

 

[wulf3n]

Indeed those rights extend to all, but exactly what rights have actually been violated by Eich's being fired. You can certainly argue that he's being fired due to his beliefs, but that's ignoring that he didn't just believe something, he acted upon that belief.

His actions while morally questionable were still legal.

edit: To me that's like saying, You weren't fired because you are Muslim, you were fired because you were praying at a Mosque.

Penalizing actions is well within the rights of Mozilla, especially when said actions run completely contrary to their positions and causes a bunch of negative PR for them.

Firing someone based on their belief runs contrary to their positions, but it didn't stop them.

 

[wulf3n]

Which is why the government shouldn't and won't try and arrest him, not why a company shouldn't tell him to leave.

And they have every right to. It's still discrimination though, which is what my argument is about.

Did they fire him because of his beliefs or because of his actions? Had he not contributed $1000 to rejecting the idea of civil rights there likely wouldn't have been the OKCupid page, or this discussion, or his almost immediate leave. His beliefs certainly informed his actions, but his actions are what got him fired.

Again this would be like saying you weren't fired because you are homosexual you were fired because you had sex with someone of the same gender. It's a trivial distinction.

 

[Hammartroll]

What's the point supposed to be? Is this going to make him change his mind on gay marriage? Are people now supposed to support gay marriage purely out of fear of losing their job? Is this supposed to be a good thing for society, or is this just the gay community being vindictive?

 

[Hammartroll]

So...people are defending a bigot.

Defending the right for a bigot (or a Christian with religion based views, take your pick) to express his views while being gainfully employed? Yeah sure, the opposite seems cruel. How is the gay community blacklisting a Christian fundamentalist any different from the Christian fundamentalists blacklisting a homosexual?

 

[wulf3n]

And it would also be discrimination if they fired a child molester. "Discrimination" in the broad way you're using it isn't a bad thing; we treat people differently based upon their actions all the time.

That would be firing someone who's breaking the law, because they're breaking the law. Unless of course the person has served their time, in which case yes, it is discrimination.

we treat people differently based upon their actions all the time.

You say that as if it's a good thing.

You were fired because you had sex with someone of the same gender... and uploaded a recording of it to the internet, all while working for a company whose mission statement is "gay sex is wrong," all of which gave the company a lot of bad PR when they, for some reason, appointed you CEO. The difference between what you're pretending is comparable to Eich's situation and Eich's actual situation is the difference between what is private and what is public.

Close but the issue with Mozilla is that their belief that everyone should be treated equally goes against their present actions. If Mozilla truly think Intolerance is wrong, why are they also demonstrating intolerance?


This whole situation is like the person that says "I'm not racist I just hate black people". Mozilla [and many on this forum] can claim to be tolerant, but the truth is their "tolerance" only extends to those they deem worthy. When the chips are down, they discriminate just as much as those who they fight against.