Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[EiMitch]

Before any debate occurs, I feel it's important that everyone understands Proposition 8, and I don't believe the majority here to have such an understanding.

They do. They just prefer to pretend its no big deal or that its not really discrimination. Its not an honest error in judgement on their part. Its a reverse-victim rationalization. They're telling themselves that people expressing their beliefs by protesting is an act of oppression, whereas materially contributing to an actual oppressive law is just expressing a belief. You can't reason with people that Orwellian. I've tired.

Speaking of which, the debate occurred days ago. You're pretty late to the party.

 

[Bombiz]

Before any debate occurs, I feel it's important that everyone understands Proposition 8, and I don't believe the majority here to have such an understanding.

They do. They just prefer to pretend its no big deal or that its not really discrimination. Its not an honest error in judgement on their part. Its a reverse-victim rationalization. They're telling themselves that people expressing their beliefs by protesting is an act of oppression, whereas materially contributing to an actual oppressive law is just expressing a belief. You can't reason with people that Orwellian. I've tired.

Speaking of which, the debate occurred days ago. You're pretty late to the party.

better late then never.

 

[EiMitch]

I'm pissed at this because he was forced to step down not because of his work ethic but for somersetting absolutely IRRELEVANT.

So if someone with a history of antisemitic discriminatory practices subsequently runs a business, during which he shows no sign of his past bigotry, would you then tell Jews protesting that business to bug off?

Also, I'm getting tired of hearing "he was fired/forced to step down." There were other ways Eich and Mozilla could've handled this. Other ways to try to make right with LGBTs. Eich chose to step down.

 

[Vegosiux]

They do. They just prefer to pretend its no big deal or that its not really discrimination. Its not an honest error in judgement on their part.

Yes, I'm sure non-American posters have exact knowledge about what Prop 8 is. After all, the world consists of "USA" and "people nobody cares about, so fuck them, right".

Or something. I don't know. But you're really not helping your position with a statement like that. It just makes you look more dogmatic and...

...oooooooh I get it. We all got Poe'd here, or something?

 

[Bombiz]

They do. They just prefer to pretend its no big deal or that its not really discrimination. Its not an honest error in judgement on their part.

Yes, I'm sure non-American posters have exact knowledge about what Prop 8 is. After all, the world consists of "USA" and "people nobody cares about, so fuck them, right".

Or something. I don't know. But you're really not helping your position with a statement like that. It just makes you look more dogmatic and...

...oooooooh I get it. We all got Poe'd here, or something?

[joke]POE!! YOU MEAN WE ALL GONNA PLAY PATH OF EXILE!! OH BOY!! [/joke]

 

[Kopikatsu]

Before any debate occurs, I feel it's important that everyone understands Proposition 8, and I don't believe the majority here to have such an understanding. So let's take a look at it.

Proposition 8 was a Californian (U.S.A.) ballot proposition seeking to make an amendment to the state constitution that would outlaw same sex marriage by legally defining marriage to be between that of a man and a woman (also as recognized by law) exclusively. As a result, it would greatly impact same sex couples, their power of estate over one another (in such cases as medical and financial decisions when in a coma, or last will and testament for example) and their right to custody of their children, or that of future children. The proposition was passed in 2008 by a wide margin, before later being found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and was thus rendered void.

Before you accuse others of not understanding what Prop 8 was, maybe you should make sure that you understand it first.

First, civil unions were already in place before Prop 8 (Specifically, civil unions were granted the same rights as marriage in 2005; Prop 8 was voted on in 2008). So no, nobody's rights were being affected by Prop 8. It was only to get civil unions to be called 'marriages'. It was purely an issue of semantics.

Second, it was voted in by 52%. 2% is not a 'wide margin' by any measure.

 

[Vegosiux]

Semantics where you sit, right?

Speaking from a pure "Getting from point A to point B" perspective, yes, semantics. Any seat on the same bus is going to get you to point B. But thing is, it's not about where you sit on the bus, is it?

 

[CloudAtlas]

hey man i'm on your side. i was just saying what he might have been saying. also as a note. i'm not white. I'm Iranian. though i guess you could call that if want.

My apologies, I took what you said the wrong way then. Still, please be aware that your argument is dangerously close to a standard racist rationale of e.g. why white US folks can't just abolish slavery. Since it is a rather convenient argument, I would imagine it was used in places other than the West in a similar fahsion, but admittedly I do no know.

 

[Vegosiux]

As I said to my boyfriend on the topic - woe is the bigot, for wicked is the victim, huh.

Speaking historically, there's a lot of truth in that, actually. The oppressed becoming the new oppressors isn't unheard of.

But that's on an entirely different scale. There's an entirely different problem present there, and that is that, as seem to be common lately, any kind of dissenting voice is immediately declared enemy, regardless of what it's actually saying. Either you fall in line or you're a horrible person. If you think this was a tad overblown, you're a horrible person because you obviously hate gays. If you think that this was short-sighted, you're a horrible person because you obviously hate gays. If you think anything other than "This was 100% great and awesome", then you're a horrible person because you obviously hate gays.

That's the kind of rhetoric people adopted here.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Before any debate occurs, I feel it's important that everyone understands Proposition 8, and I don't believe the majority here to have such an understanding. So let's take a look at it.

Proposition 8 was a Californian (U.S.A.) ballot proposition seeking to make an amendment to the state constitution that would outlaw same sex marriage by legally defining marriage to be between that of a man and a woman (also as recognized by law) exclusively. As a result, it would greatly impact same sex couples, their power of estate over one another (in such cases as medical and financial decisions when in a coma, or last will and testament for example) and their right to custody of their children, or that of future children. The proposition was passed in 2008 by a wide margin, before later being found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and was thus rendered void.

Before you accuse others of not understanding what Prop 8 was, maybe you should make sure that you understand it first.

First, civil unions were already in place before Prop 8 (Specifically, civil unions were granted the same rights as marriage in 2005; Prop 8 was voted on in 2008). So no, nobody's rights were being affected by Prop 8. It was only to get civil unions to be called 'marriages'. It was purely an issue of semantics.

Second, it was voted in by 52%. 2% is not a 'wide margin' by any measure.

Semantics? I'd think being recognized as equal human beings would not be an issue of semantics for those affected. For example, if African American and White American couples were given the right to a civil union, but denied that of marriage. Remember when segregation was a thing? Sadly, it still exists. But maybe Black Americans should just be glad they get to sit anywhere on the bus. Semantics where you sit, right?

More than three quarters of counties voted in the proposition. It was very nearly universal across the entire state.

It. Is. Semantics.

A civil union has the same benefits as marriage. Anyone who opposes gay marriage is not a homophobe by virtue of not wanting gay marriage. I genuinely cannot believe that people claim their rights were torn away by Prop 8 when they never had those 'rights' to begin with. It is ridiculous. Completely and utterly so.

Even more ridiculous is that this man lost his job at a company he founded, because he was in the majority in supporting Prop 8. A position which, although he should have no need to, he publicly apologized for.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Again, I wish to remind those among us that believe Eich was discriminated against - the victims participated in a legal boycott of a company, nothing more. They have every right to shop where they please. Why should they choose to support the company of a man that seeks to oppress them or their loved ones?

Remember: this man supported a proposition that was unconstitutional. I cannot stress that enough. Where the public did nothing more than choose to shop elsewhere, to not support a bigot, Eich actually contributed to an unconstitutional oppression of human rights.

Would you allow me to avoid a store if I found the owner rude? The smell bad? The products too expensive? Then why not the right to avoid the product of a man that would pass an inhumane law that restricts the rights of my loved ones and friends? Where is your perspective?

You're calling a word oppressive. I want you to really think deeply about this. What is the difference between 'civil union' and 'marriage'? They are difference terms for different scenarios. To call that oppressive is to spit in the face of everyone who has ever genuinely suffered from oppression. Have homosexuals been oppressed? Surely. But to call Proposition 8 oppressive is ridiculousness, and it didn't restrict anyone's rights because prior to that, homosexuals never had the right to be 'married' in the first place. If you actually went and read the Supreme Court's decision on the matter, they refused to state whether or not homosexuals have a constitutional right to be married. Specifically so. That was a matter they didn't want to rule on for fear of public backlash one way or another. That you're saying proposition 8 was an unconstitutional violation of human rights just serves to show that you have absolutely zero perspective. None. Perhaps even less than zero.

Boycotting Mozilla over the actions of one man, who later apologized for those actions, only ends up hurting the company's employees. Who are innocent of the entire affair to begin with.

Then I assume you are happy for me to tell others you would find nothing wrong with telling a Black American to sit at the back of the bus. "Semantics," I would inform them, according to you. "You've not the right to sit where you choose. You can ride the bus, so it's the same thing. Just sit at the back."

You cannot be logically consistent and have a problem with that. You must either admit the difference matters, or admit that telling Black Americans to sit at the back is perfectly ok.

It is logically consistent. If you force blacks to sit at the back of the bus, you are inherently forbidding them from sitting in the front of the bus, while whites are not prohibited from moving to the back of the bus if they so chose. Although the practice was called 'separate but equal', it was anything but equal.

There is no difference between civil union and marriage aside from what it says on the piece of paper from the government. If a heterosexual couple wanted to say they were in a civil union, they're free to. If a homosexual couple wanted to say that they were married, they're free to.

Because this is purely a matter of semantics. It is wordplay only. Restricting people from certain benefits or areas is beyond the realm of semantics.

 

[Kopikatsu]

You've talked yourself into a circle and lost the debate; you argue it is semantics to want the same marriage as heterosexual people, but not semantics for Black Americans to want to sit on the same bus. If the bus is going to the same place, or if there is two buses, one for blacks and one for whites, it doesn't matter if you cannot get on one, only the other.

Gay people cannot wed, only have a union.
Black people cannot use the white bus, only the black one.
Both do the same thing.
Semantics.

Shall we gather up some Black Americans so you can inform of this semantic?

I'm sure they'd enjoy to hear how you're comparing actual instances of oppression to wordplay. It's hilariously offensive.

Restricting people from an entire line of buses is just that. You are restricting them from a service, which is at the very least an inconvenience. What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage in terms of benefits? Go ahead, I can wait.

 

[Vegosiux]

No, no, no. You said it yourself! It's semantics. Gay people can't get married. They can have a union.

What's the difference? No really, I'm not sure how it's defined in legislation with you, seeing as I'm not American. What's the difference between the two, what does one have that the other doesn't?

 

[Kopikatsu]

You've talked yourself into a circle and lost the debate; you argue it is semantics to want the same marriage as heterosexual people, but not semantics for Black Americans to want to sit on the same bus. If the bus is going to the same place, or if there is two buses, one for blacks and one for whites, it doesn't matter if you cannot get on one, only the other.

Gay people cannot wed, only have a union.
Black people cannot use the white bus, only the black one.
Both do the same thing.
Semantics.

Shall we gather up some Black Americans so you can inform of this semantic?

I'm sure they'd enjoy to hear how you're comparing actual instances of oppression to wordplay. It's hilariously offensive.

Restricting people from an entire line of buses is just that. You are restricting them from a service, which is at the very least an inconvenience. What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage in terms of benefits? Go ahead, I can wait.

No, no, no. You said it yourself! It's semantics. Gay people can't get married. They can have a union. Black people can't use that bus, but this one instead. Same service, same times, same routes, same result. What's the difference?

C'mon, don't try to play it off now that you have to apply your logic to an issue you feel uncomfortable applying it to.

So I'm going to assume that the reason you're answering a question with another question is because you realized (or already knew) that there is functionally no difference between a marriage and a civil union aside from the name used to describe it. It's good that we got that out of the way.

I don't feel uncomfortable applying it to race issues. It's just not equatable. In the case of the buses, you're telling them 'You can't use X'. But civil unions have no such difference. They are the same in all but name. With the buses, there are two different lines. The reason Jim Crow laws were ruled unconstitutional in the first place is because even though they're separate, two different services cannot be of equal quality, and so 'separate but equal' is actually inherently unequal. And what about Hispanics? Indians? Latinos? There are more than two races in the world, you know.

A better example would be Native Americans wanting to be called such instead of Indians.

No, no, no. You said it yourself! It's semantics. Gay people can't get married. They can have a union.

What's the difference? No really, I'm not sure how it's defined in legislation with you, seeing as I'm not American. What's the difference between the two, what does one have that the other doesn't?

A civil union isn't recognized by all countries as being valid (Israel for instance, will accept a gay marriage from the US but not a civil union of homosexuals as valid), but that's not an American thing, so whatever.

That's basically it.

 

[Bombiz]

hey man i'm on your side. i was just saying what he might have been saying. also as a note. i'm not white. I'm Iranian. though i guess you could call that if want.

My apologies, I took what you said the wrong way then. Still, please be aware that your argument is dangerously close to a standard racist rationale of e.g. why white US folks can't just abolish slavery. Since it is a rather convenient argument, I would imagine it was used in places other than the West in a similar fahsion, but admittedly I do no know.

could have been used in roman times when slavery was a thing that just existed (though more for the reason of "we conquered your nation you now work for use" then the more recent one "hurrh durr you black therefore slave" ). Hell even the Greeks did it (AND THEY FOUND THE MODERN PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY). In fact the only empire to not have slaves (at least I think) where the Persians(which would be because there religion prevented them from doing so and that their leader Cyrus the Great invented the concept of human rights).

 

[Signa]

So, let me sum up what happened:

Brendan Eich, a man who financially supported a law that would clearly define "marriage" as a union between man and woman (however doesn't prohibit the implementation of civil unions with the same rights as marriage) six years ago, a man who employed and supported homosexuals, a man who has tremendous expertise in his field, is appointed CEO of Mozilla, a company - again - openly in support of homosexuals that produces a free web browser. Then, people demonize him for this donation to a cause he believed in, to the extent that his company's product is boycotted, to the extent that he is essentially forced to step down to prevent further harm for the company at large.

There's a bunch of things things I still cannot grasp about this:

1.) Proposition Eight is seen as "discriminating against gays". Before Proposition Eight, gay marriage wasn't a thing in California either, as far as I can tell. This law doesn't "take away" any rights. It doesn't prevent you from getting those rights (unless said "rights" you're talking about is the "right" to call your relationship a "marriage" - a term that is used for a religious institution by religions that, currently at least, heavily oppose this idea of "gay marriage"). Donating to this law doesn't make him a "discriminating bigot". It makes him a person with a political opinion you disagree with.

2.) And this already brings me to my next point: There's quite some double-think at work here as to what constitutes "actively doing something", "publicly speaking out" and merely "holding a personal belief". Apparently some people really can't decide if donating to this cause now means he "actively supports discrimination" or if he just "spoke with his money", so they just pretend he did both. I'm sorry, but this just makes no sense. He chose to donate to a cause he believes in - just like you all choose to donate to pro-LGBT efforts and equal rights movements. Ten years ago, this very same thing that happened to Eich today, would have happened to all of you - for the same reasons: You support - and "actively" so, apparently - something the society at large disagrees with. I've said it in the other thread already: This isn't a fight for equal rights anymore. This is the other side gaining the upper hand and doing the exact same thing to the new "minority". No, "but they're bigots!" does not justify this. You are the side that promotes tolerance, equal rights and open discourse. Instead, you are just a slightly more inclusive variant of the close-mindedness you opposed.

3.) This was a boycott against a company. Yet, it was about the single person at the top, who demonstrably has not pushed his personal opinion on the company. The justification for this is "I do not want to support him financially.", which also makes no sense. See, you're also saying his life isn't ruined because he already made a fortune, or that he could get a job elsewhere. Even if we assume that's right (and I disagree especially on the second part, but more about that later), by boycotting the company you're not just "not supporting" him financially, you're "not supporting" the hundreds of other employees Mozilla has, many of whom are LGBT as well. So, again, this leaves the conclusion that this is purely about him, but it's an attack on the whole company purely because he works there.

4.) And this also brings me to the next point: "He can get a job elsewhere.", I've mentioned that already. This is nonsense. The very people I am complaining about here, "Social Justice Warriors", they will hunt him down wherever he goes, until they tire or he breaks completely. He can#t just get a job elsewhere, because any company that hires him would get the very same pressure for "supporting a bigot". This is the very same argument just presented for boycotting Mozilla - why not boycott the next company that hires him? If you don't, you are again supporting him financially. If you do, you're hunting him down across jobs. Good job keeping that moral integrity there.

5.) Apologies are requested. I don't get it. Why would he have to apologize for his opinion? Are we now shoving religious people in the closet because they don't like the idea of a "gay marriage"? Can you only have any form of public life if you fully embrace the rainbow and refuse to so much state the idea that there might be a difference between state and church when it comes to unions? Every single one of you has some form of controversial opinion that, in fourty years, might be the next big thing to fight against. Or the next big thing to support. Who knows. By the logic presented here, against Eich's donation from six years ago, none of you will ever be allowed to have any influential public position, purely because there is the potential for yet another screaming mob to try and bully you out of your job for your opinion.

6.) This is a shining example of "Us vs Them", and I have also said that in the previous thread. If you don't 100% perfectly and fully support everything the LGBT movement wants, you will have a screaming mob with pitchforks on your heels, attempting to make your life miserable at every turn. That is, if you're a valuable target, since this is obviously also about money. But that's not even what I want to focus on: I just do not understand how a movement so focused on equal rights, tolerance, acceptance, and being part of society then tries to demonize people for not sharing that. And this isn't just about people actively working against you. As I said above, this time the movement at large attacked a person who supports the cause, but doesn't agree with some of its details.

I am obviously generalizing here. There are a great deal of people in this movement that are shaking their head at this incident as well, but at the end of the day - thanks to OKCupid and everyone joining this mob holding the banner up high - this incident reflects on the entire movement. And it made me rethink this movement. I'm going to say this very bluntly now: I am partially inclined to support the opposition at this point, purely to give you some time to think about what you're trying to achieve. But one thing I am certain about is that I will not hold the banner myself. I will not speak in favour of this movement, because it has demonstrated that it is not staying true to its ideals once it's given sufficient power.

Thank you for that *slow claps*

Really, this isn't the first time this has happened, but it's getting to the point where I too am having difficulties supporting the movement. Straight white males are of no concern to them, even when their manta is tolerance for all.

 

[wulf3n]

I no longer have the time to respond fully, so I'll pick the part I feel the most important.

But courtesies are given to those who give them back, and Eich has made it clear that he doesn't extend the same courtesies to gay people that he does everyone else, meaning that he shouldn't expect to receive them in turn.

That mentality ends in a vicious cycle. If a person is truly against bigotry they'll extend the same courtesies they would like to receive. Even to those who spit in their face.

Yeah, because there are so many good jobs paying a living wage available these days that each and every employee has a clear moral choice. /sarc

So you're saying someone who say works for the Westboro Baptist church doesn't have a clear moral choice? Obviously there'll be gray areas in which either the actions are unknown, or are ethically fuzzy, where such a black and white distinction doesn't work, but that is not what I was referring to, and am frankly a little insulted that's what you assumed I meant.

 

[ninetails593]

To think that before we only had speculation as to how speaking out against homosexuality caused zealous hordes to ruin your life. Now we actually have proof!
Thank you, boycotters, for demonstrating the fascist grip of the LGBTQIA.

 

[EiMitch]

Yes, I'm sure non-American posters have exact knowledge about what Prop 8 is. After all, the world consists of "USA" and "people nobody cares about, so fuck them, right".

Yeah, you got me. How arrogant of me to presume such a thing way back page one of... No, wait! I said that on page thirteen! Three days after this thread was started. If someone reading this thread from the beginning to that point still doesn't know, they were probably just skimming with glazed eyes.

Something that was determined well after the fact. So no he wasn't supporting anything unconstitutional because at the time it was still considered constitutional.

The same could be said of segregation. Or slavery. Or denying women's rights.

But that's just emotionally-loaded rhetoric, isn't it? Its not the same thing at all in this case, because we're just talking about teh gheys, right? Its no big freaking deal. /sarc

In all seriousness, how did a court conclude prop 8 was unconstitutional? By looking into a crystal ball? Or by reading the constitution? This isn't rocket science. The bigots supporting prop 8 should've known better.

So you're saying someone who say works for the Westboro Baptist church doesn't have a clear moral choice? Obviously there'll be gray areas in which either the actions are unknown, or are ethically fuzzy, where such a black and white distinction doesn't work, but that is not what I was referring to, and am frankly a little insulted that's what you assumed I meant.

I make a comment about how hard it is to find gainful employment, as opposed to the "still need welfare along with this paycheck" wages at Wal-Mart and fast food. And your mind jumps to Westboro. Because a small group based entirely on hate propaganda is the same as a larger employer like Apple, I guess? **shrugs**

O~okay, so are you saying Mozilla employees didn't have a clear choice, but Apple employees did? And what about other smartphone companies? Or modern electronics in general? Where do you think they're all made these days? Should we condemn all employees in the electronics industry? Where else could they put their skills to use and get paid a living wage without the baggage of directly or indirectly exploiting poor people in sweatshops? Seriously, what alternatives exist for them?

Lemme cut-&-paste an example I made for kiri2tsubasa's consumption:

So if someone with a history of antisemitic discriminatory practices subsequently runs a business, during which he shows no sign of his past bigotry, would you then tell Jews protesting that business to bug off?

Are you going to defend those employees, or insist they should've known better? Wait, I didn't even say what this hypothetical business was. Could it be a mom-&-pop sized operation, or a larger company? Is it a baked-goods manufacturer, a software firm, or does it really matter?

I can keep this up for days, or until you quit denying that demonizing people, not merely disagreeing but demonizing, for exercising their freedom of choice of which browser they use is hypocritical hyperbole. You don't even have to swallow your pride and admit it. You can just stop.

 

[Vegosiux]

Yes, I'm sure non-American posters have exact knowledge about what Prop 8 is. After all, the world consists of "USA" and "people nobody cares about, so fuck them, right".

Yeah, you got me. How arrogant of me to presume such a thing way back page one of... No, wait! I said that on page thirteen! Three days after this thread was started. If someone reading this thread from the beginning to that point still doesn't know, they were probably just skimming with glazed eyes.

And as always, it's all someone else's fault, yes. That's a bit of a familiar rhetoric by this point, I must say.