Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[Kopikatsu]

A better analogy would be if for white people they were called buses and for black people they're called shuttles. They're exactly the same thing, and nobody is forced to sit anywhere they don't want to (provided the seat isn't already occupied, obviously). The only thing that's different is the name. And you know? That's fine. Who gives a shit? It's purely semantics.

Regarding how the California/Prop 8 situation was, this is probably the greatest analogy I've ever heard. Just wanted to give you props for it.

Since I haven't commented on this topic since the last thread when it was still an early story, all I have to say is this-
We've now confirmed yet again that a well qualified, productive individual who gets results at his job is completely able to be publicly shamed out of their position due to a political stance they took 6 years ago, and a contribution of less than 1% of their income towards raising awareness of the political stance. These are the tactics used by those who are ostensibly part of the moral high ground when someone disagrees with a specific facet of their political position. Thanks for the info, and to everyone who has an opinion they may want to share, be sure to check your privilege first, it may come back and bite you in the ass in a couple of years when we're more enlightened as a whole.

It's a terrible analogy, because they are blatantly, objectively wrong. Civil unions are not recognized by the U.S. federal government, do not cross state borders and do not grant the same state rights as marriage in many of the states that even allow homosexual civil unions.

States that don't recognize civil unions don't recognize gay marriages either, so that's a moot point.

And if you can explicitly name a State and how it treats civil unions differently from marriage, that'd be great. Because I don't know of any that makes a legal distinction between the two. Civil unions also don't end at the state line. They're valid in any state that recognizes civil unions and/or gay marriages.

None of this is relevant to Proposition 8 anyway. In California, civil unions and marriages have been exactly the same since 2005. Since the discussion is about Eich donating a grand to Prop 8, anything outside of California is irrelevant and beyond the scope of the issue at hand.

 

[wulf3n]

Lemme guess: poor choice of words?

Not really, our back and forth demonstrated that my initial assertions were disturbingly similar to what I was criticising. As such I reevaluated my position.

Still against bigotry, just not in the sense that you can never treat anyone differently ever no matter what they do because that's wrong.

Again this isn't about treating everyone the same, and I'm not saying they're the same [unless of course they start stabbing people in the face,]. No what I'm saying that on the scale of "bad" the Bigot who is prejudiced for no reason is certainly at the worse end of the scale than those who are only bigoted towards bigots. However their actions are still on the scale of bad.

So you can be "bigoted" towards bigots, with the caveat that its "less bad"? Thats just reverse-victim lite.

I agree, however you do realise you're referring to the LGBT community and their supporters with that statement right?

I would suggest that if you're going to join in on an existing conversation that you read the entire conversation and determine who's arguing what. Because I wasn't advocating that it's ok to be bigoted towards bigots. Yet here you not only imply that I do but also that I'm referring to my own actions.

 

[Onepostonly]

I'm not going to take up much time or space to explain my opinion on the matter. I signed up only to give this one post.

From a relatively neutral position (18 years old, male, straight but with many bi and gay friends), my personal opinion of the LGBT community and those who support it in the United States has taken a hit because of this, and I definitely have a lower opinion of them than before. I do not believe that this is a fair and just action to have come to somebody who, like it or not, had an opinion. From the first time I encountered this story, I had the impression that this was essentially society punishing somebody for thoughtcrime. This is especially bothering to me, because this isn't something that was, at the time, considered backwards and worthy of punishment. Because we hold a different moral code to those who came before us, should they be punished for having their beliefs, due to the fact that those beliefs are not currently in the main? No.

In a couple of years, it is entirely plausible that the shoe will be back on the other foot. That LGBTs and their supporters will be in the minority, and someone in a high position of power will donate to a cause of "maintain the definition of marriage to include gays". And if they were to be fired from their job, the entire LGBT community would be up in arms. I definitely would be. Especially if they were fired due to a huge public reaction that was disproportionate to the issue at hand. People wanted him gone, for not sharing this belief. This can be seen from this quote from washingtonexaminer.com

"CEO Brendan Eich should make an unequivocal statement of support for marriage equality," a Credoaction petition signed by almost 75,000 people said, per The Inquirer. "If he cannot, he should resign. And if he will not, the board should fire him immediately."

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/brendan-eichs-downfall/?_ga=1.139962483.1186306336.1396924087


This is not a couple of people switching to google chrome. This is 75000 people wanting a man fired due to his position on something completely unrelated to his job, when he had never had a problem with it interfering with his job before. This goes beyond the 'reverse-victim trope' someone was complaining about. This is no longer people pushing back against oppression. This man did nothing for 6 years, and at the time he did it it was the popular opinion, he stated that he would try and maintain a good working environment for his company, that his personal views were not going to be impacting and that the LGBT community would be beyond welcome for his company. It is about as close to an apology over a personal opinion as you can have. Especially one that is not necessarily wrong for him to have. He never indicated that he hated gays, he never discriminated in the workplace, and he said that he was sorry for the hurt his position had on people.

The reverse victim trope describes an oppressor saying that he is the victim of oppression where none exists. This man was hounded out of a job from a company he founded and was one of the most influential members of, by 75,000 people, for having an opinion on a topic that they didn't agree with, before he could have any time to prove them wrong, for an action of really small proportions 6 years prior.

Those of you who would have been negatively affected by Prop 8 will undoubtedly see this as a victory. I know that, and I can understand your viewpoint. However, to people who were on the fence about these issues, or even the ones who are small supporters of your position in this matter, this is seen as something that damages your reputation. People will see this as being a major overreaction to a very minor issue from another decade following somebody around for years. It brings fuel to the fire that you will try and silence anyone else who comes before you, regardless of your message of fighting against intolerance.

I will say this as clearly as possible. To anyone who is not effected by their emotions on this issue, the LGBT community and their supporters come of very much as being the people in the wrong. This will drive more people away from your cause then it will attract people to it, and it will drive some who are with you now further away from you when they discover it. And those are the people who are sympathetic towards your cause. To those who dislike you or your cause, this will be further proof that they are right and you are not to be trusted or given any sort of power. The correct way to deal with this is to forgive and forget. That will show people a message of tolerance, and respect. That will be what changes the opinion of those most against you. Not this.

This leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Onepostonly]

...what? I'm not confused. I never said what happened was illegal. I never said that he was in the right by supporting proposition 8. I was saying that the level of vitriol this man received was disproportionate to what he deserved. This was not just the free market, people personally attacked him (by use of the petition) because of his opinion. I'm not saying that that was illegal. But it seemed very petty, and overall, puts the movement in jeopardy.

And it wasn't just the free market. 75,000 people signed a petition based on his actions from 6 years prior, which demanded that he either be for 'pro gay marriage' camp, or he would suffer major consequences. That is not the free market. That is persecution.

Also, for the reverse victim comment... you appear to have noticed that and come to a conclusion without reading what I said. I wasn't talking about homosexuals or anything in that part. I was saying that this situation is not the same thing as a reverse victim trope. It was used to describe Eich. Not the homosexuals. Yes, they were discriminated against back in 08, and to a lesser extent now. But I wasn't denying that. I never denied that.

Read what I say before you make incorrect assumptions.

 

[Strazdas]

They use "reason, logic, facts and benefit analysis" - to quote you directly - to arrive at their conclusions, just like you do. The only difference is that you refuse to use the word "moral".

Since you're probably still denying that, let me ask you: How exactly do you propose to determine the right course of action for a society without thinking about the (moral) value of the possible alternatives? I'm really curious to know.

and there is no reason to use the word moral here. as you said yourself, there is nothing thats moral or immoral here. its reason logic and benefit analysis.
Morality has no value. alternatives are about benefit to our society, and that is the value we assign to alternatives.

 

[Dragonbums]

And it wasn't just the free market. 75,000 people signed a petition based on his actions from 6 years prior, which demanded that he either be for 'pro gay marriage' camp, or he would suffer major consequences. That is not the free market. That is persecution.

Because random internet petitions carry so much weight right? What exactly were those people going to do? As someone stated earlier in this thread you are well within your rights as a US citizen to demand that a person get fired for doing X thing. The employer is under no obligation to follow through with that and the demander in question cannot do anymore than "demand" they get fired.

There is no prosecution. There never has been persecution, and there never will be. The police force isn't going to come in and swamp the guy out of his office. The government isn't going to take the guy and put him in trial at court. You all know these people aren't going to do shit if he didn't step down and the literal worse case scenario is that Mozilla loses a huge chunk of it's userbase to alternative browsers- which is within every right of the consumer to do (it's called speaking with your wallet.) and is not a form of radical activism or fascism as some people seem to legitimately believe in this thread. I also suppose there will be more whiny blogs about it too.

And that is how the free market works. A company, or a man/woman in charge of the company does something a consumer base doesn't like and as a result people don't use your services anymore. They use the competitions. Regardless of the reason why consumers did the specific actions means fuck all in that.

 

[CloudAtlas]

They use "reason, logic, facts and benefit analysis" - to quote you directly - to arrive at their conclusions, just like you do. The only difference is that you refuse to use the word "moral".

Since you're probably still denying that, let me ask you: How exactly do you propose to determine the right course of action for a society without thinking about the (moral) value of the possible alternatives? I'm really curious to know.

and there is no reason to use the word moral here. as you said yourself, there is nothing thats moral or immoral here. its reason logic and benefit analysis.
Morality has no value. alternatives are about benefit to our society, and that is the value we assign to alternatives.

You still haven't told me how you determine something as vague as "benefit to our society". What alternative benefits society the most? The one that maximizies GDP? The one that maximizes aggregate happiness? The one that protects whatever individual rights you deem important the most? And which rights do you deem important, and how important, in the first place? And what if the goals are at conflict with each other?

What logic, reason, and critical thought enable you is to make better, more consistent moral judgements, but they're moral judgements nonetheless. You'll realize then that, say, "because the Bible says so!" is generally a rather poor argument, but you still won't be able to find the objectively right answer to question of, say, under which circumstances the principle of non-intervention is superseded by the responsibility to protect fundamental human rights in a country where those are violated.
Seriously, I could give you dozens of real life examples like the latter one. But yea I repeat myself: Do tell me how you make judgements that are absolutely totally not moral in any way here... I'm waiting.

 

[Strazdas]

Morality has no value. alternatives are about benefit to our society, and that is the value we assign to alternatives.

>Morality has no value
>Benefit to society

Go ahead and explain to us what a benefit to society is, without appealing to morals. Hint: you can't, you won't and you will hopefully learn the lesson.

Benefit to society is something that factually makes life better for the society as a whole. Morals are what you think is good or bad. Morals may coinside, but does not always do, with benefit to society.

You still haven't told me how you determine something as vague as "benefit to our society". What alternative benefits society the most? The one that maximizies GDP? The one that maximizes aggregate happiness? The one that protects whatever individual rights you deem important the most? And which rights do you deem important, and how important, in the first place? And what if the goals are at conflict with each other?

What logic, reason, and critical thought enable you is to make better, more consistent moral judgements, but they're moral judgements nonetheless. You'll realize then that, say, "because the Bible says so!" is generally a rather poor argument, but you still won't be able to find the objectively right answer to question of, say, under which circumstances the principle of non-intervention is superseded by the responsibility to protect fundamental human rights in a country where those are violated.
Seriously, I could give you dozens of real life examples like the latter one. But yea I repeat myself: Do tell me how you make judgements that are absolutely totally not moral in any way here... I'm waiting.

Humans have been looking for an answer to that question for 3500 years of written history and perhaps even more. A random internet poster will not come up with an answer just because you asked (btw, you didnt before).
What we do is we stumble around in the dark hoping to find food rather than poison. but now we got a flashlight and we call it science.

 

[Strazdas]

Morality has no value. alternatives are about benefit to our society, and that is the value we assign to alternatives.

>Morality has no value
>Benefit to society

Go ahead and explain to us what a benefit to society is, without appealing to morals. Hint: you can't, you won't and you will hopefully learn the lesson.

Benefit to society is something that factually makes life better for the society as a whole. Morals are what you think is good or bad. Morals may coinside, but does not always do, with benefit to society.

Bzzt. Wrong.

What makes them better? Why is that good?

I said answer without morals.

you have posted this while i was editing my post above yours to respond to Atlas, therefore i would like to point you to that post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.846451-Mozilla-CEO-Brendan-Eich-Steps-Down?page=16#20883493] instead of repeating myself.

also proclaiming somone is wrong while providing no evidence but only question does not actually make you correct.

 

[Strazdas]

Still waiting.

I asked you to explain what a benefit to society is without using morality. You have yet to do it (because it's impossible). Stop avoiding the awkward truth and admit you are wrong, or answer the question.

Keep waiting then. I have already explained what it is to the best of my abilities, and i also noted why i cannot give you a precise formula. I could easily tell you to stop avoiding the truth and admit morals are relative, but that would accomplish just as much as you doing it - nothing.

 

[tangoprime]

snip

Based your assertions in this thread, can I count on you joining my boycott of OKCupid due to their co-founder/CEO's $1,000 contributions to anti-gay candidate's campaigns between 2004 and 2008? I would really like to see him pressured into to resignation due to his speaking bigotry with his wallet by donating $500 to representative Chris Cannon (R-UT) in 2004, a rep who voted against gay marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation discrimination in the workplace, and against gay adoption, and a $500 donation in 2008 to then Senator Barack Obama's campaign, who, at the time, stated that marriage was by definition between a man and a woman, and even until 2011 held the position that he hadn't "signed on to same-sex marriage."

In doing so, despite this being many years ago, he showed his bigotry, and it's our duty to make his employer feel the pain he caused, right?

 

[CloudAtlas]

Morality has no value. alternatives are about benefit to our society, and that is the value we assign to alternatives.

>Morality has no value
>Benefit to society

Go ahead and explain to us what a benefit to society is, without appealing to morals. Hint: you can't, you won't and you will hopefully learn the lesson.

Benefit to society is something that factually makes life better for the society as a whole. Morals are what you think is good or bad. Morals may coinside, but does not always do, with benefit to society.

This is a non-answer. What actually makes life better for the society, that is the question. And that kinda depends on what people "think is good or bad", doesn't it? And sometimes people want different things. And how do you decide whose wants should supersede the others without thinking about how morally justified these wants are? You already said before that the majority isn't always right, so that can't be the solution.

Oh, and by the way, the benefit of society as a whole, as you seem to think is what matters, without considering individual rights of some sort, that's just utilitarianism. A distinct school of thought of moral philosophy. So should you really have this point of view, welcome aboard - you care about morals after all.

Keep waiting then. I have already explained what it is to the best of my abilities, and i also noted why i cannot give you a precise formula.

If you cannot give a sensible answer, then either your abilities are rather poor, or it is because you're trying to defend an nonsensical opinion.

I could easily tell you to stop avoiding the truth and admit morals are relative, but that would accomplish just as much as you doing it - nothing.

Saying that morals are relative, i.e. subscribing to moral relativism, wouldn't be the same as saying morals don't matter though, as you do. Presumably Jane doesn't subscribe to this, though, and neither do I, for that matter.

 

[Frostbyte666]

Well I find this disgusting with these gay rights groups being bullies with the if you don't follow my belief then SHAME! He never publicly spoke about his believes and gave a private donation against gay marriage something that I agree with since marriage is a religious ceremony and demanding a religion to put aside their beliefs to allow a marriage in their place of worship according to their holy rituals screams of a lack of respect and understanding of their religious practices (hypocritical gay rights activists).

On the other hand I do believe that there should be a legal agreement that gives all the same benefits of marriage without that pesky religious overtone getting in the way (isn't it called a civil union). Great for same sex partnerships and heterosexual atheists (myself included) who while not believing in their god won't slap a priest in the face saying marry us even if we don't follow your doctrine and act in a way that is heretical to your beliefs.

Now I will need to don a flame retardant suit since people will be trying to shame me and call me a homophobe etc. etc. all because I don't hold the pro gay marriage viewpoint for what I believe very justified reasons.

 

[gagagaga]

Well I find this disgusting with these gay rights groups being bullies with the if you don't follow my belief then SHAME! He never publicly spoke about his believes and gave a private donation against gay marriage something that I agree with since marriage is a religious ceremony and demanding a religion to put aside their beliefs to allow a marriage in their place of worship according to their holy rituals screams of a lack of respect and understanding of their religious practices (hypocritical gay rights activists).

On the other hand I do believe that there should be a legal agreement that gives all the same benefits of marriage without that pesky religious overtone getting in the way (isn't it called a civil union). Great for same sex partnerships and heterosexual atheists (myself included) who while not believing in their god won't slap a priest in the face saying marry us even if we don't follow your doctrine and act in a way that is heretical to your beliefs.

Now I will need to don a flame retardant suit since people will be trying to shame me and call me a homophobe etc. etc. all because I don't hold the pro gay marriage viewpoint for what I believe very justified reasons.

I don't think you're a homophobe - you don't think gay people or sex is inherently wrong or anything. But I think your assertion that gay people are going to force priests of whatever religion to marry them against said priest's will ridiculous. How the hell would that even work, and why would gay people go to an anti-gay priest instead of one who will marry them willingly?

 

[Strazdas]

This is a non-answer. What actually makes life better for the society, that is the question. And that kinda depends on what people "think is good or bad", doesn't it? And sometimes people want different things. And how do you decide whose wants should supersede the others without thinking about how morally justified these wants are? You already said before that the majority isn't always right, so that can't be the solution.

Oh, and by the way, the benefit of society as a whole, as you seem to think is what matters, without considering individual rights of some sort, that's just utilitarianism. A distinct school of thought of moral philosophy. So should you really have this point of view, welcome aboard - you care about morals after all.

If you cannot give a sensible answer, then either your abilities are rather poor, or it is because you're trying to defend an nonsensical opinion.

Saying that morals are relative, i.e. subscribing to moral relativism, wouldn't be the same as saying morals don't matter though, as you do. Presumably Jane doesn't subscribe to this, though, and neither do I, for that matter.

It indeed is a question. One i have no answer for, because i am not a omnisentient god. Yes, i am unable to determine the ultimate benefit for humanity, but do you?

I never tried to put a sticker to my views, i dont know if its similar to itlitiarianism or not. I know that personal morals are not part of it. according to wikipedia "Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering." Based on some of the info in that article, i would not be a utilitarianism, at least not a complete one.

Indeed i am aware of my abilities to put forth the idea being rather poor. that is my fault and i only hope people who are better than me in literacy can produce a more coherent version of my ideas.

Morals on large scale does not exist because morals are relative. Morals being relative, they are as useful as opinions and opinions are not facts.

Moral relativism is a fact. unless you can prove existence of being that throws universal morals on us (like a GOD). You may not "subscribe" to it if you dont want to. Does not make you correct just like flat earth society does not make earth flat.

 

[Strazdas]

Ugh. Another non answer. Why bother replying if you're going to repeat yourself and not actually reply to the questions asked of you?

why bother quoting if you are going to add nothing to the discussion?

 

[CloudAtlas]

It indeed is a question. One i have no answer for, because i am not a omnisentient god. Yes, i am unable to determine the ultimate benefit for humanity, but do you?

So you are telling me that using arguments that are in any way based on moral considerations are the wrong way to in order to decide how we want our society to look like, yet you provide no alternative?

Morals on large scale does not exist because morals are relative. Morals being relative, they are as useful as opinions and opinions are not facts.

Moral relativism is a fact.

Judging from your own statements, you actually believe exactly the opposite. You say you believe that there is some objective "benefit to humanity", a theoretical point, a certain set of rules/laws/practices/etc where human happiness/utility/whateveryouwannacallit is maximized, even though you don't know exactly where this point is. Consequently, you must believe that actions that get us closer to this point are right and actions that don't are wrong. That is, they are morally right or morally wrong.

And you know what? I believe the same. Honestly, I came to believe that you're just a bit confused about the word "moral". You don't seem to like it very much, perhaps because you heard it too often by people pushing their own beliefs without ever really justifying or reasoning them, but this is exactly the opposite of thinking carefully and analytically about morality. Arguments like "this is wrong because the bible says so" are, for example, usually among the weakest moral arguments you can make.
Here's a good & entertaining start if you're interesting in learning more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY&list=PL30C13C91CFFEFEA6

 

[Strazdas]

I know ! I have asked questions several times and I don't get answers just smart little replies! Its like they are trolling. That has to be low content posting

making implication that they are trolling is against the rules, so we cannot discuss that. That person does indeed often either provides nothing to the discussion or gives false information (or just chants "unconstitutional").

So you are telling me that using arguments that are in any way based on moral considerations are the wrong way to in order to decide how we want our society to look like, yet you provide no alternative?

No. i am saying that using arguments that are based only on moral consideration are the wrong way to decide. like i said morals sometimes, in fact one could make a case for often even, coincide with benefits. For example its factually beneficial to be agianst murder. after all simple logic dictates that if we murder eachother the suffering would not be made lower. This is also a moral belief of many people, thus the two coincide.

Judging from your own statements, you actually believe exactly the opposite. You say you believe that there is some objective "benefit to humanity", a theoretical point, a certain set of rules/laws/practices/etc where human happiness/utility/whateveryouwannacallit is maximized, even though you don't know exactly where this point is. Consequently, you must believe that actions that get us closer to this point are right and actions that don't are wrong. That is, they are morally right or morally wrong.

A practical point of benefit to human community we got set up. It maximizes happyness for everyone in the community. i do not have the golden formula on how to do that, i doubt anyone does. Im sure that if we knew exactly the end goal moving there would be easier, but since we never experienced it in our history we do not know and we always find ways to make life better (be in invention of technology or no sexual discrimination). We learn an improve. its not a static thing, it changes as humans change.
I do not believe in right or wrong actions, at least not in a way term is generally used. I believe in beneficial and damaging actions. That being said, i am aware that what i think is beneficial does not necessary is, because what i think is my own single opinion. I do not deny the possibility that i may be wrong about this whole thing, but so far i got no evidence to believe so and where i was shown evidence i have agreed on my mistakes.

You can't claim something is better or worse for humanity without it being a statement of morality. Come on. Some common sense is all I'm asking for. Words like better, good, bad, worse - they are all subjective and they all require morality. You can't explain why killing a million people is bad without using morality, because the very question is of morals.

I didnt claim it was better. I claimed it was beneficial. the terms are different. and i admit that my belief is subjective as well, which in fact supports moral relativism.
Oh, but i can explain why killing a million people is not beneficial to human community - people are dead. that causes suffering, suffering is not beneficial to best of our knowledge, therefore its not beneficial. no morality here, only reasoning.

 

[CloudAtlas]

So you are telling me that using arguments that are in any way based on moral considerations are the wrong way to in order to decide how we want our society to look like, yet you provide no alternative?

No. i am saying that using arguments that are based only on moral consideration are the wrong way to decide. like i said morals sometimes, in fact one could make a case for often even, coincide with benefits. For example its factually beneficial to be agianst murder. after all simple logic dictates that if we murder eachother the suffering would not be made lower. This is also a moral belief of many people, thus the two coincide.

If you are saying killing fellow humans is wrong because it increases suffering - i.e. decreases utility - for society as a whole, then you are implicitly making a utilitarian argument. As I told you earlier, utilitarianism is a distinct school of thought of moral philosophy, but it is not the only school of thought, and it certainly is not the only valid or objectively correct school either.
If someone else is saying killing fellow humans is wrong because the right to life is a fundamental human right (because everyone wants to live) that mustn't be violated, he is arriving at the same conclusion here, but with different reasoning. You and her both, though, are making moral judgements, whether you like the term or not.

I really don't know what else I could say to you to convince you that you too are actually making moral arguments when you are making moral arguments. And I don't know either how to convince you that what you believe is pretty much the opposite of moral relativism. Which is good, because I think moral relativism is awful.

Anyway, whether you like the term "moral" or not, at least you seem to be in favour of using logic and reasoning to make decisions on the political issues of our time. And one could only wish that the people who talk about morality the most, the preachy religious kind, would do the same.

Edit: Speaking about reasoning... I wish I could have made my point as succintly as Triligan.

 

[Hover Hand Mode]

Just a few years ago, his view on homosexuals would have been the status quo and 60-70% of the country would have agreed with him. I'm so happy to see that this is no longer the case. Now people have to hide from their bigotry like those people who would block black students from entering white schools.