Really unfortunate that this happened to someone as nice and competent as Eich. His leadership would have held amazing things for Mozilla, the open web, javascript, rust, all of it. Instead he got targetted by an intollerant lynch mob that felt it had to strong-arm someone with views they didn't agree with. Sure, you could say it's a human rights issue. But ask yourself, would you consider it reasonable for Christians to target some arbitrary CEO who donated some money to planned parenthood several years ago, since that person was violating the human rights of infant children? And then for that CEO to step down in shame for because their respect for human life was in question? Of course not, that would be silly.
> But ask yourself, would you consider it reasonable for Christians to target some arbitrary CEO who donated some money to planned parenthood several years ago
You do realize this kind of thing actually happens, right? The right wing of american politics is an avid user of and believer in boycotts.
Personally, I have no issue with this. No company is entitled to a person's money, and if they make their public face about politics they accept the consequences, both good and bad, of doing that. And it really is worth noting that there are often positive consequences of doing it as well. Even for causes I disagree with. Chick-Fil-A probably came out a bit ahead, if anything, since their presence was stronger in markets that supported them.
Likewise, Disney openly supporting gay rights through Gay Days at Disneyland and making sure their insurance supports gay employees' families have had both positive and negative impacts.
This faux-freedom argument, where people aren't entitled to decide how their own money is spent but the richest and most powerful are entitled to do whatever they want with theirs without any fear of consequence is just a ridiculous double standard.
I agree that people have the right to push for companies to select officers that meet their criteria. But things like the OkCupid stunt are less respectable IMHO.
Is that really the way we want to see the Internet going? Visit a website where the web client is technically perfectly capable of displaying the page, but was associated with someone of the wrong political ideology, and so they get a nag page instead?
There is no clean exit to that logic; shouldn't OkCupid have banned JavaScript at the same time then? Shouldn't they put up nag messages to people visiting from IPs that resolve to a Republican National Committee host?
And if you do the things above, when does it become a net neutrality issue?
The beautiful thing is that you are free to boycott or speak against OKCupid for this all you want. You could even write your own browser that puts up a nag screen if you go to OKCupid.
Whether or not OKCupid did the right thing here (they certainly got some press out of it), it certainly wasn't bad for the internet as a whole.
> You could even write your own browser that puts up a nag screen if you go to OKCupid.
The scary thing about HN is that you might actually be serious that people should "simply write a web browser" to enforce correct political ideology...
But there now seems to be a police on moral thought. If someone dares to speak against an opinion that the left holds dearly, they're now subjected to having their careers and lives ruined. Don't you think this stifles alternative thought?
No, there are no thought police. There are, however, consequences among your social peers and professional colleagues for public statements. There is no reasonable free speech protection you can put in place to change this.
Throughout history, groups have always sought to stifle alternative thought. The moral difference is in the tactics they use, which have ranged from censorship to violence and bribery to peaceful protest and civil disobedience. I, for one, prefer and even encourage peaceful public outcry of this sort. Say what you want, but if your customers (users, friends, coworkers) don't like it they don't have to buy from you. In fact, they probably feel a moral obligation not to. This doesn't only happen on the left - remember the Million Moms (or whoever) boycotting JC Penny for using Ellen as a spokeswoman?
> No company is entitled to a person's money, and if they make their public face about politics they accept the consequences
I think Eich was chosen for his technical contributions (e.g. the creation of Javascript), not because he donated $1000 to a political campaign a few years back. There was no indication whatsoever that he was about to use his his new influence or Mozilla's money to advance political causes. In Chick-Fil-A's case it was at least possible to imagine that eating there would increase the owner's wealth, which would then go towards politics. But any fears about Mozilla promoting an anti-gay agenda under Eich seem unfounded at best.
I'm sure he was, and that's an ok (but not perfect) argument for when he was appointed CTO, and that's probably at least partly why the similar reaction then didn't gain anywhere near the same traction.
But as CEO you are a representative of much more than your technical contributions. You are the face of the company.
"The right wing of american politics is an avid user of and believer in boycotts."
Which companies have they boycotted? The recent organized calls for boycotts include Chick-Fil-A, Mozilla, Walmart, McDonald's, etc. I haven't seen the right calling for a boycott of companies that supported gay marriage initiatives. Seems like the left is more into boycotts than the right.
This doesn't look like a response to me, since I never said that the left doesn't use boycotts. They're a common political tool and have been for a very very long time.
I was asked for some examples of right wing boycotts and I came up with just one organization that has organized a bunch of them. I did not have to dig deep to find it and I dug no further than that at this very moment, but they are not rare or hard to find.
You do realize this kind of thing actually happens, right? The right wing of american politics is an avid user of and believer in boycotts.
Let me introduce you to my neighbor down the street, the Rev. Jesse Jackson. His entire power structure is based upon leveraging boycotts as a means to an end. Each side is more than willing to play the victim game.
It's a little like this being 1969 and Eich, having grown up in the Deep South, admits giving donations to a Proposition to stop interracial marriage. You could rationalize it by saying it's happening at a time of very rapidly changing social views on what's normal and that he's from the South and that he's not against blacks per se. He just doesn't think it's a good idea they breed with whites. But it's still wrong.
I have no sympathy for Eich as he's a fully grown adult who works in one of the more open minded industries in one of the most liberal parts of the US and he actively wants to lead people. A great leader has to be tolerant of a wide range of social and cultural POV. He demonstrated he's not very tolerant. Bad sign.
It could be 99% of the voters that supported it. It's still objectively morally wrong, just like Jim Crow laws were.
@jiojk542: it's morally wrong because it denies equal treatment under the law (tax benefits, government benefit benefits, survivor benefits absent a will, etc) to law abiding people. You are the one creating a false equivalency. People that would like to deny same-sex marriage are free to not marry someone of the same sex. Their freedom is not being curtailed. The same is not true the other way around. That wikipedia link is patronizing, unimpressive, and unconvincing. edit: the only "impingement" on the freedom on the anti same-sex marriage side is they must tolerate the presence of people the do not approve of. Such is the burden of a democratic, pluralistic society.
@LordKano - I literally do not understand your point. This is about the civil recognition of a personal relationship. A justice of the peace "marriage" has no religious meaning, nor does a marriage ceremony performed in a church have any civil component absent a marriage license. There are religions that allow same-sex marriage ceremonies. Are they "immoral" religions? Is it a violation of the 1rst amendment (vs the 14th) to not permit the civil recognition of those religious rituals? My point is denying an individual's right (not a privilege) on this is de facto immoral, regardless of your feelings about that individuals choice, if it does not cause demonstrable and direct harm to others.
@NeonVice - A marriage is a religion thing. A civil union is a government thing, which is currently and inconveniently also call "marriage". Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and atheist heterosexual couples can have government marriages even though they may have nothing in common with Christian marriages ideals. Nobody is forcing any church/synagogue/mosque/etc to perform a marriage ceremony of any kind they do not want to.
With those 3 replies, I will waste no more words on this damn topic.
A homosexual male could not marry a man and also a heterosexual male could not marry a man. They are both equally treated under the law. What you want is to codify attraction into the law. Government should get the hell out of marriage and instead only deal in civil unions. Individuals can decide if they are married or not.
I wonder how the conservatives, or the taliban, or communists, or ... call their version of "objectively morally wrong". Oh wait ... probably exactly the same.
> There are religions that allow same-sex marriage ceremonies
Are those religions "objectively morally right", or should all their adherents be fired from their jobs ? Or maybe all the other religions ? Atheists perhaps ? Come on, who do we fire ? Who do we burn ? Do tell.
> With those 3 replies, I will waste no more words on this damn topic.
Exactly, you advocate firing people for their political views, and you've gotten your way. Remind to refuse any job offer or business opportunity or cooperation I ever get from you. Let's not pretend that this makes you anything but a bigot and a total asshole.
The difference, obviously, is that Prop 8 denies rights to some people and does not affect anyone else, aside from offending them.
I don't understand your point about my comment about religions that permit same sex marriage. I think it's pretty obvious I was trying to say that morals can differ and in a pluralistic society, we err on the side of permitting individual freedom. Same-sex couples should not have to live by certain interpretations of the Talmud. Charismatic/Evangelist Christians should not be compelled to use birth control. Sikhs/Muslims/LDS members should be permitted to wear religiously significant clothing. Is that controversial?
Finally, I have actually defended Eich's promotion at some length in non-HN forums. I believe that Mozilla stands for privacy protection and the highest quality open/free software. In that regard, his viewpoints/goals and mine are very close. As strongly and fundamentally as I disagree with him on other subjects, I felt his leadership would be beneficial to Mozilla. I regret he was forced out, I think it was a bad decision.
Now, that being said, don't worry about turning down a job offer from me. I can disagree civilly, but you've called me a bigot and an asshole, and I am done with you.
Found this: "Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California, passed with more than 52% of the vote statewide. In the four most populous Silicon Valley area counties, it received just under 38% of the vote. The measure was later overturned by the courts."
"A great leader has to be tolerant of a wide range of social and cultural POV."
First of all, it was made very clear in all the articles on him that he has never shown any mistreatment of anyone because of their sexual preference. It seems that his intolerance isn't in question. If you want to put that quote on anyone, I'd aim it at the leaders of OKCupid. The hypocrisy is so stupid.
Sexual orientation does not equal race. Scientists have never isolated a gay gene. There are no definitive causes of homosexuality. His opinion of homosexuality as a choice is as scientifically valid as your belief that it's innate. Why is he wrong and you right?
If sexual orientation is a choice, then why aren't there throngs of "straight" male scientists choosing to be gay for a while, fucking a bunch of dudes, enjoying it (that's the key part), then writing papers on it?
Don't you see? If anyone decides to say an unpopular opinion that offends the left, their lives and careers would probably be ruined. Doesn't that stifle conversation? How is that a good thing?
You and many like you keep saying he lost his job over 'unpopular views others didn't agree with'. The sort of thing, as Brendan Eich says, you can leave at the door when you come to work. But it isn't as if Brendan Eich lost his job because he went out for beers with a few co-workers and, in an unguarded moment' said something like 'you know what, that that whole marriage between people of the same gender just doesn't square with my religious faith'.
I wonder if people like you are familiar with what California Proposition 8 was. California courts had already ruled that same-sex marriages were valid under the California constitution and such marriages were already taking place. Prop 8, funded in part by out-of-state conservative religious groups, sought to modify the constitution to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman. That is what Brendan Eich was for and that's what he supported with his money - the legal imposition of a specific belief on a historically discriminated-against minority. It's certainly his right to do so but it's hardly compatible with holding the top leadership and representative position at Mozilla. If you were the leader of a Catholic charity but expressed strong pro-choice views, you'd probably have trouble holding onto your position as well.
As a meta point, speaking of discriminated minorities, you should probably avoid calling people who, however vocally, express views different than yours on the internet a 'lynch mob'.
Religious fundamentalists target the rest of us all the time. That is the problem here, not the other way around.
It's exactly this hateful, viciously intolerant attitude Eich represents ("someone nice"? seriously?). There's nothing silly about not wanting anything to do with people like that, or the organisations they represent.
And that's all people have done: stated, in various ways, they wanted nothing to do with Eich.
Which doesn't even come close to Eich's agenda of denying people equal rights simply because of how they were born.
I find it beyond comprehension that someone like Eich is being portrayed as the victim here, or that we should simply accept having active bigots as leaders, CEO's, employers or business partners.
The protesters aren't the lynch mob. Eich and his kind are.
Yes its unfortunate that Mozilla is going to miss out on Eich's contributions. But ultimately the result here shows that the benefits however great they may have been didn't outweigh the costs of his beleifs alienating the community Mozilla is built upon.
Its not intolerant to not want to work under the leadership of someone who has worked to do you and others you care about active harm.
I never advocated firing anyone actually including eich, but right or wrong employers certainly have the right to fire someone for their outside of work activities if its interfering with their ability to do their job. There are only very narrow protections for protected classes here.
Everyone has the right to free speech in this country which is great, but free speech does not come with any assurance that there will not be consequences. You have no right to be free from criticism. You have no right to expect your employer to keep you on if you're damaging their business by generating bad press. I think this fundamental misunderstanding of free speech often drives these sort of "its intolerant of you to not tolerate my intolerant speech" sort of comments.
Free speech comes with a great responsibility - accept the consequences of your speech.
People have a right to not be murdered. They do not have a right to be the CEO of a company.
A group of people can say whatever they like, and if it puts sufficient pressure on a company that company can choose whether to act. What specific part of what happened here would you like to ban?
A "lynch mob" is a pejorative term because it refers to a group of people who deprive another person of both their right to a fair trial, and subsequently their right to not be murdered (it also carries connotations of innocence, and a mob looking for a victim that fits a particular preconceived profile).
Banning speech is reductio ad absurdum of arguments that what happened to Eich should be somehow prevented. Because that's all that happened -- people making choices about what products to use, and talking to other people about that choice.
> But ask yourself, would you consider it reasonable for Christians to target some arbitrary CEO who donated some money to planned parenthood several years ago
Well, the US still can't have an an openly atheist president. So, yeah, I can imagine.
Would you support a business led by, say, a known member of the KKK?
I'm not asking to be inflammatory, nor am I comparing Eich's views to that. I've seen a number of statements like yours as the main counterargument to the criticism of Eich as CEO, and I'm genuinely curious whether the argument is, "anything goes, and personal values have no place in business", or, "I don't think gay marriage is an important enough issue to warrant this level of criticism", or something else.
And yet, his views are totally liberal relative to the views you find in some Muslim countries, where homosexuals are sentenced to death or are just killed outright. Why aren't you focused on that, instead of worrying about the definition of marriage for the time being? Aren't there much larger fish to fry?
I do sort of feel as though this was a "fish in the barrel" target that people are feeling good about. Yes, everything small matters in large numbers, but I don't think this is really much to show in terms of LGBT rights progress. It has the veneer of the armchair activism you see on Tumblr.
"would you consider it reasonable for Christians to target some arbitrary CEO who donated some money to planned parenthood several years ago"
Do you mean exactly how they (Family Research Council in these cases) did with the Girl Scouts, Coca Cola, or Starbucks? I mean, that's just off the top of my head.
Instead he got targetted by an intollerant lynch mob that felt it had to strong-arm someone with views they didn't agree with
Stop being so dramatic; this was not a lynch mob, it was a bunch of rightly pissed-off people, including many members of the open web community, who were angered that somebody who had been actively trying to strip their civil rights had been promoted to the head of an organisation which explicitly talks about the importance of diversity in the community.
It is really super difficult to reasonably say that objecting to someone's intolerance is in itself intolerance.
But conservatives who support traditional marriage (and civil unions with the same rights as marriage) are not welcome in the club, right? How is that appreciating a diversity of thought?
You know, if Erich had stated "Hey, I'm not pro gay-marriage, but I'm really behind equal civil partnerships that offer all the same rights" then the backlash would be much milder. But there is a vanishingly small number of people who hold that opinion, because it's pretty ludicrous (boils down to 'this word is so important that it must not be changed, despite the fact that I don't object at all to equality')
They're not welcome to the club when they're taking actions to strip the rights of another individual. Opinions are one thing, concrete actions are another.
> Opinions are one thing, concrete actions are another.
Where's the line? Donating $100,000? Donating $1,000? Donating $5? Voting? Discussing your opinion? Setting your facebook profile? Telling someone when they ask? Not answering when they ask?
The donation wasn't for a public information campaign to encourage gay people not to marry. If was for a law to force them not to. That's the difference.
For people to speak with their wallet? Yeah. For people to speak up if they disagree? Yes. For people to speak up if they agree? Sure.
I'm for freedom of speech. Thinking that people can't speak up would go against that belief. Now, granted, if I speak up, I need to be accountable for what I say. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the government. It doesn't mean you get to silence your critics.
> Of course not, that would be silly.
Why do you think people using their freedom to speak silly?
I'm also curious if you held the same beliefs when the CEO of GoDaddy killed an elephant, and there was the public outcry over that.
You compare the situation with a group targeting an 'arbitrary CEO' for making a donation several years back for planned parenthood. I would actually understand this, if the arbitrary CEO was leading a company associated with a pro-life church, with most members having anti-abortion stance. Although the CEO is certainly entitled to his views, I would not think he would be fit to lead a company if those publicly known views are actually in strong disagreement with the pro-life church's following.
Now, replace planned parenthood with "Prop 8", pro-life church with
"inclusive open source community" and anti-abortion with "pro LGBT-rights".
yeah he had great views such as making firefox technically relevant (through rust, through asmjs, through multiprocessing, etc) and looking at mozilla's real value (users trust mozilla)
except, that 2nd point became an issue with him ceo, too. sad.
No, it's not unfortunate at all, you idiot.
Anyone who harbours hateful beliefs is not A Nice Person, nor should they be anywhere near a position of leadership.
Since you obviously need assistance with your flawed thinking, you can start by recognising that your argument would hold identical merit and positioning were he a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
The issue isn't about rights. I wish everyone would recognize it's about privileges and equal treatment. The benefits [of a government recognized marriage] (tax breaks, visitations, spousal benefits, etc.) are all privileges. How can you tell? Because with the stroke of a pen all those things could be revoked by the government.
Except that marriage is recognised as a human right, both internationally and by the USA. Any specific benefits, obviously, are not rights, but the ability to be married is agreed to be a human right.
> Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
You got a person fired for his political views. Let's not pretend Brendan Eich violated human rights, he did not.
You did.
I'm making my sites just outright refuse mozilla's browsers.
Can you please understand that coming from a country where political cleansings of companies and government departments are normal that you will see a VERY strong reaction against this.
> Let's not pretend Brendan Eich violated human rights, he did not.
He argued for, and donated money towards a campaign for, the violation of my human rights. I'm sorry that I got angry about that and exercised my rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association?
> I'm making my sites just outright refuse mozilla's browsers.
You're well within your right to do that. I'll point out that now you're in the same position as I was; you're boycotting Mozilla because it doesn't match your political views.
Everyone has equal access. Every person is allowed to marry one other person of a different sex.
I get it. People don't like the "of a different sex" in there and they have the right to appeal to have that removed. I'm more in favor with getting rid of marriage privileges all together... why burden single people?
UPDATE: To the downvoter, am I wrong or do you just disagree? Please clarify by commenting.
Thank you for commenting. I still say access is equal. It doesn't discriminate based on sex, it discriminates based on preference. It seems there are two camps that disagrees whether its acceptable or not to discriminate by that.
(Update: your point about race is great and forcing me to rethink my stance by the way.)
What is the purpose of marriage benefits? How does having them benefit society enough that government wishes to recognize it? I'd guess its to encourage offspring in order to continue future prosperity. I'm proposing we step back and ask, what's the purpose of recognizing marriages? What are we trying to incentivize and is it working?
Rather than blindly extending things perhaps we should consider repealing or scaling them back? Look at the war on drugs, we thought banning marijuana would be beneficial, we're now questioning that.
The second point of burden pertains mostly to giving tax breaks to married couples.
Largely, to:
(1) simplify life for people who want to do a fairly common thing, establishing a fairly comprehensive mutual support partnership, and
(2) encourage people to do that thing, and thereby reduce the chance of becoming a public burden.
> The second point of burden pertains mostly to giving tax breaks to married couples.
The "break" is mostly (roughly) treating married couples as if their combine income were earned equally split between the two, on the premise that the lower earning member of the couple is making sacrifices to enable the higher-earning member to earn their wage (for couples of roughly equal income, there is no tax break [1].)
I don't want to be mean, but this logic is just faulty. You can define any discrimination as equality if you shuffle the terms around.
Think instead about marriage equality meaning equality for couples, rather than individuals. The proposal is that a same-sex couple should have the same rights as an opposite-sex couple. Discrimination is based on the collective gender of the couple.
Will the people who tried to boycott Mozilla over Brendan Eich's appointment also refuse to use any of his creations?
If OkCupid said that they were planning to stop using Javascript because of his views I would have respected them a lot more than simply vilifying someone for their private personal donations to causes they believe in.
To summarize the real issue here: if we stopped using a company's products just because we disagree with the personal views of its founders, leaders or employees, we wouldn't use any products at all. This event worries me because it makes freedom of speech effectively irrelevant.
Oh for fucks sake. Whether or not every Christian is pro-life doesn't change what I said, but thanks for the tangent. Every Internet argument can use more pedantic tangents!
Um. Yes, I would be upset if your proposed scenario happened (and similar things do happen). But these two scenarios are not quite alike, are they, considering in one case the person is doing something I believe is wrong, and in the other case something I believe is right, or at the very least acceptable.
Getting together to force the dismissal of a person from a position of power based on their views is not automatically bad or good. It is bad or good depending on what the views are. Homophobic views are bad; it is good to get people dismissed from power based on those views. A woman's right to choose is good; getting people dismissed from power based on that view is bad.
This opinion is deeply disconcerting to me. I think our society needs to be very cautious in drawing the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" views. Plenty of people have views I disagree with, but which I still consider within the realm of "acceptability". If people don't have a right to reasonable private opinions, the political majority can wave around stories like this one as an incentive to prevent minorities from speaking up.
If Eich had actively spoken out hatefully against gay people, I would agree that his resignation would be warranted. But he has done nothing of the sort, and committed in a blog post to equality at Mozilla. I think Mozilla's actions smell like a hasty overreaction which sets a dangerous precedent.
> If people don't have a right to reasonable private opinions
I question the assumption that this opinion: "gay people ought not be allowed to marry" is a reasonable one. I'll accept common, but I don't agree that it's reasonable.
Also, he does still have the right to that opinion. He just doesn't have the right to express it free of consequences.
Also, he didn't hold that opinion privately. He held it publicly (by donating money to support its enforcement via the law).
If people don't have a right to reasonable private opinions
Define reasonable.
The fact that you can't demonstrates why this argument is baseless. "Reasonableness" is decided by social desires, ultimately, and that's exactly what happened in this case.
Considering this whole discussion is over a law that the majority of California voters supported, the argument against Eich is even weaker, even though I disagree with his stance.
The majority of Californians probably don't support the law- it passed a referendum. Moreover, the critical partnerships for Mozilla are with people who heavily oppose it.
He's saying the opposite of that. A position that discriminates against minorities is not symmetric with one that does not. Personal convictions that discriminate against minorities are noxious. It's OK to condemn those kind of views.
Of course this produces the paradox of being intolerant of intolerance. Like most paradoxes it's not a problem in practice.
If by "angry mob" you mean "the broad moral view of society," yep, that is what I'm saying. If your morality disagrees with society's to a great enough degree, it is right, for the purposes of this discussion, that you be removed from power.
(Caveat: as a moral descriptivist I should point out that I believe there is not really any such thing as "right" or "wrong," just what people like and don't like. But, as shorthand, I use the same words other people use.)
Lets not forget that he supported "the broad moral view of society", as evidenced by a popular vote at the time. I'll agree that the "broad moral view" has switched, and turn about is fair play. Let us punish the new minority.
Ah, but he has a choice to be in that minority. He could work on his empathy, examine his beliefs, and come to the correct conclusion (that two people having equal protection for their sexual preferences will hurt him in no way). All he needed to do to avoid this situation was right wrong beliefs, and publicly acknowledge the same, the same way he previously publicly embraced those beliefs. Those in whose oppression he assisted have no such option, as you cannot, at least according to current science, examine your sexual preferences and change them.
Fair enough. To be honest, I was in the majority with Brendan Eich at that time (although not in California), based on sincere beliefs. And I am now in the majority with you and others in being all for marriage equality and viewing it as a civil rights issue. But because of where I am now and where I have been, I feel empathy with those struggling to sort out their feelings or that are still on the other side. Most people who I know who were or are still against gay marriage aren't "homophobic" or hold have any problem with gays, they just don't view marriage as a civil right, like the civil rights of 60's, since marriage has always been a man and woman thing since the institution was invented. And while I may disagree with them, it doesn't matter to me in the larger context, and I still willing to love these people and I don't think they're bigots worthy of my contempt unless they prove to be so beyond this single issue. I respect that this is where I differ from many of you, who, this single issue is enough for you to hate someone or wish for nothing but evil upon them. And I'm not talking about the figures at the forefront of the anti-gay-rights movement, but the every day people I know who may be more conservative than I and besides an occasional vote or even a donation that differs from mine, that is only a small part of who they are.
Oh, I can hardly claim any real moral superiority. I was a Christian fundamentalist as recently as 2006. Apparently zealots for one team often end up being zealots on the other side when they change their mind.
I do not hate Brendan Eich. I do think he purchased what he is receiving, though.
> He could work on his empathy, examine his beliefs, and come to the correct conclusion
Yeah, if he keeps looking and examining what's wrong with him he will eventually see that there really are five lights. I mean, that's all it takes right? We simply choose what to believe as it's convenient to us?
And I was talking about how convenient it must be to simply choose to believe something different.
As far as "five lights", I suggest viewing "Chain of Command" from Star Trek: The Next Generation, which has a famous scene that riffs off of Orwell's 1984.
I think we're up to 59% pro as of now, with broad demographic trends pointing toward further shrinkage of the anti-group above and beyond the natural attrition that comes from it no longer being comfortable to express bigoted views.
This is an issue where public opinion is changing quickly, as it often does when oppression becomes recognized as oppression. I'd recommend taking the limit of the function as yr->2020.
You say that the two situations are not alike, because you believe is wrong, and the other is right.
...
So I suppose we should all judge everyone's actions based on what you believe? Since, obviously everyone has their opinions, but those who have opinions other than yours are wrong.
That is not a fair or reasonable way to interpret what I said. The personal pronouns I used are obvious stand-ins for large swathes of society whose view agree with mine.
Ah, right. So we should just go with what most people believe. Mob rule. Of course.
You might find it surprising that a number of people on the other side of this issue would agree with you. They know they're right, so everyone should just agree with them.
That's not exactly a scalable approach to social issues.
Thanks you for writing that comment! I'm mostly on the side that disagrees with you, but you've expressed your position beautifully and I can only wish that everyone expressed their positions in the same way. In particular, this seems to be the central point of the whole discussion:
> Getting together to force the dismissal of a person from a position of power based on their views is not automatically bad or good. It is bad or good depending on what the views are.
It's just so delightfully free from rationalization! Where other left-leaning folks pretend to use some abstract rules that apply to both sides equally, and make up bogus "fundamental differences" between positions that outrage the left and positions that outrage the right, you say outright that you're going to use your moral judgment on a case-by-case basis. That might be right or wrong, but at least we can have a sensible discussion about it.
So, even though I believe that forcing Eich to step down was wrong, I urge everyone to upvote the parent :-)
The whole category of moral non-cognitivist beliefs is a really freeing way to look at the world. A lot of things make sense that just don't under other frameworks. I'm a true novice in this area, but that's how I see it.
Yeah, I agree it feels liberating. Though I prefer the broader label of "non-realist", because "non-cognitivist" seems too restrictive.
For example, if you think mankind might someday create an AI that would satisfy the preferences of humans, then you need these preferences to be expressible mathematically, as some kind of utility function. If you're a non-realist, you're okay with that, as long as the utility function is specific to humans (i.e. the utility functions of human-built AI and alien-built AI don't have to be the same). But if you're also a non-cognitivist, then you're in a difficult spot, because obviously one can make true and false statements about a mathematical function. Does that make sense?
(Disclaimer - I'm a Google engineer as well, and also pretty active on lesswrong.com which has covered these issues in much detail.)
So here's the part about this that deeply disturbs me.
It's reasonable to assume at this point that Mozilla's next CEO will have their political opinions thoroughly vetted, overtly or covertly. In fact, it's reasonable to assume this will become a higher priority at all tech companies. Who wants to be the next Mozilla, after all? You pretty much have to do this now.
And that's an awful place for us to be. It's going to go too far, because these things always do. Once you make something a corporate risk, corporations go too far in reducing it. So we're going to get the blandest, most milquetoast candidates possible. And it's going to hurt people on all sides of the political spectrum.
It's also going to make people with ambitions of CEOhood hold back from any political support of anything, liberal or conservative or whatever.
There's a definite chilling effect at work here. An internet mob has forced out a major company's CEO over a political issue.
Yes, for many it's more than just politics. But that's not my point. My point is that it's also a political issue, and that's the lesson that's corporations are going to take here. They aren't going to limit it to issues some people see as human rights issues, they're going to apply it to all political issues, because overcompensating is what large corporations do.
It's worrying, and ultimately a step in the wrong direction.
It's reasonable to assume at this point that Mozilla's next CEO will have their political opinions thoroughly vetted, overtly or covertly.
You say political, I say moral.
And you're talking as if this hasn't happened for a long time already. If a company discovered their CEO was racist they'd fire them immediately - if not for their own moral reasons then because they're opening themselves up to a volley of lawsuits. You can bet that CEOs of any decent sized company are vetted.
Do people no longer have the political right to disagree about what falls under the precept of morality though?
How immoral can a corporate officer be before they become ineligible for the position?
I mean, you mentioned racist CEOs, but what about CEOs who oppose affirmative action without actually changing their corporate policies regarding it? You ask one person and you'll hear that banning affirmative action is racist, ask another person and they'll tell you it's just enforcing fairness throughout.
Were that it was so easy to simply reduce things in a tidy bundle by slotting them in the "morals" bucket...
The trick is public perception of it. Once the public considers an issue no longer political, and rapidly coalesces behind a point of view... if you are on the wrong side of the point of view, expect to suffer repercussions.
I would put forth that this issue has passed out of "political issue" because of its obvious trajectory.
Corporations already extensively vet their executive appointments for their politics, personal life, and appearance. Sometimes specifically and overtly, and sometimes via social systems within the company. To think otherwise is the height of naivety.
I'm fine with adding "publicly opposes same-sex marriage" to the already long list of disqualifications for leading an organization, particularly one like Mozilla.
I've found that a good check on arguments involving same-sex marriage is to see if the same argument could be swapped out for interracial marriage (i.e. in this case, would people find it as upsetting if someone was unable to become the CEO of a progressive, civil-rights-focused organization because they supported anti-miscegenation laws).
TL;DR: It isn't really a political issue anymore, it has become just intolerance and homophobia.
I think this issue has crossed a threshold. 61% of young Republican leaning Americans (18-29) support marriage equality. The issue has an obvious trajectory and end point, which means it has shifted in public perception from a "political issue" to simple intolerance, like racism or sexism.
There are still organizations in the US that consider "race purity" a political issue, but the vast majority of the country just considers it intolerance and hate.
Just a short time ago (1986) 1/3 of Americans considered interracial relationships "unacceptable"... today, 1/3 of Americans have a family member in an interracial relationship, and the vast majority consider it fine. It doesn't take long for something to shift from a political issue to a non-issue -- and if you are on the wrong side of history, you will called out.
My point being, I consider this no different than ensuring your CEO didn't donate to the KKK or any other hate group. Technically donating to the KKK is political speech, and you have every right to do it -- but you don't have a "right" to be CEO of Mozilla in spite of it.
I don't think it is, I think it is about this specific issue. This issue isn't considered "political issue" anymore (by many), it is a moral issue. A hate issue. Akin to racism, sexism, etc. He was unlucky enough to be on the wrong side of rapidly shifting public perception and got burned by it.
> It's also going to make people with ambitions of CEOhood hold back from any political support of anything, liberal or conservative or whatever.
I strongly doubt it; liberal viewpoints are as welcome as always. An internet mob has forced out a major company's CEO over his politically conservative opinion. Unless the company in question is conservative as it's basis (eg, a church, the boy scouts), you don't see people ousted over liberal viewpoints.
If you find your mouse cursor hovering over the downvote button, first find an example of a CxO internet mobbed because of their liberal stands.
It's important in the context of your comment to remember that Mozilla Corporation is owned by the Mozilla Foundation, a 501(c)(3) with a political mission of extending an open internet.
The Mozilla Foundation accepts donations and in turn provides grants to many political (or quasi political) causes, including:
- Creative Commons
- Free Software Foundation
- Open Video Alliance
- Personal Democracy Forum
- Public Knowledge
- Software Freedom Conservancy
Mozilla is not a normal company. It is a politically-motivated, donation-accepting non-profit. IMO, it is completely in line for them to ask the CEO to step down for their political opinions.
While all the facts you mention are true, you may want to read http://incisive.nu/2014/thinking-about-mozilla/ for a different take on the conclusions to be reached from those facts. In particular, the paragraph starting "Several of my colleagues have called for Brendan’s resignation. I have not done so, despite my strong feelings on the issue ..."
If the guy believes that God needs gays to be treated differently from straights, and acts on that belief, how can he be trusted to make decisions about company personnel, or indeed any decision on anything?
It's OK to hold people accountable for their daft beliefs.
That's your speculation and not fact. The only known fact is that he donated $1000 for Prop 8. From being for prop 8 the most we can conclude is that he wants the definition of marriage to remain "between a man and a woman" legally.
I'm an atheist and I see that one can be for or against prop 8 for sociopolitical reasons. Depends on what does one appreciate or understand as marriage. I can also imagine that many conservatives, atheist or not, would be for Prop 8 if that was ever voted in my state.
Yes I'm speculating on the motivation. Whatever the reason, he wants something stupid, harmful, unfair and illiberal in my opinion so his judgement is in doubt.
The thing is, all this is decidedly not against anybody's rights. He has a right to say and do what he wants, anybody has a right to speak out against him and organise a boycott, and any employer has a right to ensure that a new hire will not negatively affect their image.
Nobody's actually forcing anybody to do anything - nobody's treading on each other's rights, and everybody is acting as suits them. So the question is... what do we do?
Do we suggest that speaking out against people who do things we don't like is wrong? Do we suggest that refusing to associate with people who we feel are attacking us is wrong?
I am one that is considering joining politics, beside my startup.
But at the same time, I am very worried that if I do, I will get into more problems than anything.
In face since I joined a startup as tech-cofounder, I have been much more muted in stating my views, because I know lots of people won't understand them at all and will just be upset.
If you had a brother, or a best friend, or a coworker who was LGBT, whether or not they're treated the same as you are (assuming you are heterosexual) by our society should not be considered a political issue. It's fundamentally an issue of morals, and I think it's exceedingly appropriate to vet the morals of a CEO candidate.
I think this is a good nutshell. Apparently it's not bigotry if you're hating people for not agreeing with the liberal cause du jour.
What would be an OK middle ground? Maybe this isn't a good case, because one man's "making Eich pay for his offensive beliefs" is another man's "keeping the Mozilla image palatable".
Baker has worked with Eich at mozilla for 15 years and says that she was unaware of Eich's views on gay marriage.
She says that it has given her cause for self-reflection about how she had not noticed.
Nor apparently had anyone else until they discovered his donation from 6 years ago.
Sounds like he was doing a good job of separating business and politics.
- Brendan Eich is a great guy and I suspect would have been a great CEO and done good things for the company.
- I fully respect the actions of Mozilla employees who did not want someone with Eich's opinions as their CEO. It's all very well to "respect the opinions of others" but when the opinion in question is that you should be treated as a second-class citizen, that you are not as good as other kinds of people, then that becomes very problematic if that opinion is being held by your superior. If that superior is in fact the CEO, someone who is the "face" of the company, provides leadership, and rallies the troops, then it becomes even worse.
I find both statements above to be true, despite the fact that they are at odds with one another. Humans are complicated.
Remember folks: Mozilla is a civil rights organization, not a technology company. They happen to operate in the technology space, but their stated purpose is to safeguard and advance civil rights, not sell technology. A potential CEO's history with regards to civil rights is absolutely relevant with respect to this organization. What Mozilla does and how Mozilla operates should not be viewed through the same lens that we would view a technology company such as Apple, Microsoft, or Oracle.
I'll be honest, I didn't know that at all, and I might look to them less as an example of technology advancement. Why work on programming languages (Rust), running Unreal in the browser, or web standards, if it isn't your goal to advance technology?
technology is neither good nor bad; it's an ongoing process of evolution. It is also a force of power. It is necessary to ensure the safety and liberty of the people that no single monopoly over these technologies exist.
now, let's say some new area of technology emerges. If the only entities capable of wielding that technology are for-profit corporations, the people may find themselves unable to defend themselves against being subject to this technology. And so, in order to maintain the safety of the people, the people must always be abreast of the latest technologies.
They're no less an example of technology advancement because they can be viewed as a civil rights organization. They're at the forefront of technological civil rights. I merely posit that they are not a technology company because I would define a technology company as a company that exists to sell technology for profit. Mozilla does not exist for this purpose: Mozilla exists to safeguard the rights of the many, and they do so by staying at the forefront of technological advancement with regards to The Internet.
And this is part of why I found this whole fiasco so sad. As far as I'm concerned Mozilla is one of the very few technology companies I trust, and they have an enormously important role in safeguarding many of our rights in practice.
I think that this whole affair has deeply harmed them and we need them strong.
The technology that Mozilla produces is of great importance. But that does not mean that all other concerns are totally irrelevant.
Let's use an example where Eich held a really extreme opinion (like, maybe all non-whites in California should be shot on sight, or something ridiculous like that.) There would likely be widespread opposition to his appointment, and I find it difficult to believe that there would be anybody preaching about the unfairness of the "internet lynch mob" then.
Obviously that's not going to happen. But it demonstrates that there's clearly a point at which the personal views of an important public figure like Mozilla's CEO are important. With that agreed, it's obvious that the difference is merely in terms of the importance different people afford it.
Let's say that he did hold that extreme opinion. He's also one person in a greater company and without the direct means to make that interesting viewpoint come to light. It's also unsure if he even had the intention to bring it to fruition.
However, if he did start to act on a plan to bring it to fruition, using the company's resources or heck, even his personal off-time resources, don't you think -that- would be the point at which people should be calling for his ousting?
Hmm, I didn't think about that, good point. To me, they have just always been the group of people that are making a pretty nice browser alternative to IE and adding a key piece to the whole "competition is good for innovation" mantra.
according to their manifesto, their stated purpose is to keep The Internet a free and open platform. It turns out that this does go hand in hand with innovation, and so they are an institution for innovation, but their stated purpose is pretty clearly grounded in user freedom.
Huh. I fail to see how that has to do with this character at all but thank you for the information; I really didn't think Mozilla acted as a pseudo-EFF.
I have no idea. What I'm saying is that it doesn't, in practice, actually matter for those companies, but it does matter for Mozilla. Let's say, hypothetically, the CEO of Apple|Microsoft|Oracle had donated to Proposition 8; that doesn't affect their ability to do their job, because their job has nothing to do with protecting the civil liberties of others. Those companies purpose is to turn a profit for their owners. That is outside of the realm of ethics; it is outside of the realm of what one perceives to be good or bad.
Mozilla, on the other hand, is an organization that is meant to protect people from oppression. For that reason, it is absolutely fundamental that a Mozilla leader have a provably clean civil rights record.
(and I'm pretty sure that Tim Cook doesn't oppose gay rights since he's openly gay.)
Mozilla, on the other hand, is an organization that is meant to protect people from oppression.
What are you talking about? The Mozilla Manifesto says nothing about 'protect' or 'oppression', 'rights', 'civil', 'diversity', 'discrimination', 'orientation' (sexual or otherwise), or 'marriage'.
All but one of their stated principles are about 'the Internet'. Number 8 is about 'transparency promoting participation', which seems to have not worked out so well for the inventor of Javascript.
Tim Cook is gay? It doesn't mention that anywhere on his wikipedia page and I am pretty surprised to hear about it. Inspired, actually, as a gay person that thinks telling people your sexuality is about as relevant in most situations as telling people your favorite flavor of ice cream.
This is like suggesting that, if Mozilla were a big supporter of child slavery, it would be fine, because that's not their market. Suggesting that anything an organization does or represents outside of their core market is irrelevant to their business is a laughable fallacy (and yes, I know that having Eich doesn't explicity give Mozilla an anti-equal-rights position, but the problem was that having him as a figurehead implicitly condoned his behavior, and does implicate them despite whatever statements they might make to the contrary).
I love people's ability to have horrible beliefs a lot more than the (now legal) ability to marry my boyfriend, so this is unfortunate to hear. I've always admired Mozilla for what it does, a lot more than other companies that get painted as homophobic (Chick Fil A?), so this is too bad. I think he was fine where he was, and his opinions on people matter as much to me as I suspect my opinions matter to anyone else.
Could you please tell us more about GLAAD and the landscape of gay politics? What are the different groups and what are the major issues they (dis)agree on?
What would they think of a comment like this, from a prominent British gay critic/writer ?
"Most of us... are content with civil partnerships and have not pleaded for gay marriage. But every minority has within it a core of single-issue politicians and protesters who are never satisfied and always ask for more, and homosexuals, both male and female, are no exception."
It's really no different than any other special interest group.
GLAAD has had lots of success in the past and done a lot of good, but now I feel like they are trying to find things to be outraged about, which has become tiring to hear about. When you're going after Dan Savage and Alec Baldwin for "saying the wrong things" when they are clearly LGBT allies I think it's time to reevaluate what's really important. Reading the one "gay news" site I follow sometimes feels like I've stepped into the Women and Women First sketches on Portlandia.
I don't really see big divisions other than with the GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans sorts. Most of gay politics seems to be centered on the civil rights issues, otherwise gay people span the political spectrum like any other group. Obviously they lean more towards the Democrats, but I know a fair number of gay people that are Republican.
As far as civil partnerships go, my impression (and also my opinion) is that most of us think that while it might be a step in the right direction, it's not really an acceptable solution at least in the US. There are a lot of rights civil marriage brings that civil partnerships don't.
I do personally think that if the federal government decided to just not recognize marriages as anything other than a religious ceremony and searched-and-replaced "marriage" with "civil union" in all the laws I would be fine with that.
There is a difference between having a legal right to horrible beliefs (something most posters here, I think, support), and having an expectation that those beliefs have no effect on your opportunities when you are seeking a highly public job that impacts millions of diverse people.
Many of those people, myself included, probably don't buy the party line that you can completely divorce business decisions from deeply held personal beliefs.
Would you feel the same way if he'd donated to some far-right group that was against intermarriage between blacks and whites? What about something even more extreme? I don't see how the situation would be fundamentally different, or how your argument that this reaction is "too bad" would no longer apply.
I would feel the same way if he contributed a million dollars to something far more extreme, and I am not sure if it would carry any more or less weight if that extremity were suddenly as personal or close to home as is the matter of gay marriage. Some people do like to hide behind the concept that, if you're not gay then why are you having X, Y, Z opinion in this conversation; I wanted to throw it out there that, as a gay man that loves his boyfriend but also loves people's opinions and the right to have them, this seems like a damn shame.
Mozilla wasn't going to become some bastion for social counter-productivity just because one man, even in the CEO position, held a certain number of opinions; I trust him more than that, I trust Mozilla more than that, and I trust our ability to find out and handle that if it were indeed to happen.
I respect your considered opinion, then, even though I strongly disagree with it.
I will point that, if you didn't trust him more than that, if you didn't trust Mozilla more than that, and if you didn't trust our ability to sniff out and handle such a situation, then I'm assuming your opinion would be different? If so, it's worth considering that your trust may not be shared by most people, and there are good reasons, in general, for skepticism. It's also worth considering that when the consequences are large, even a small risk may not be acceptable.
Cynically: Some degree of conformity to your group is required as a CEO, including on political issues. In the tech world, supporting SOPA is a killer, but also certain other social issues, including gay marriage. If you run a big popular chicken sandwich in the South, don't start donating to pro-choice (abortion) groups either.
The gay marriage issue seems to be the most socially poisonous out of all in Silicon Valley - I find the level of vitriol offputting. Would this apply to someone who was pro-2nd amendment, pro-life, or held other similarly minority views? Many people disagree on the civil rights of gun ownership or abortion, but it is not nearly as loud. Everyone paints social issues a black-white, right-wrong decision, and ignore that over half of Californians, whether their religion or personal beliefs dictated so, voted for Proposition 8. While you or I don't necessarily agree with them, we will interact with them thousands of times in our lives.
It goes both ways. Just let that sink in, and realize the role that human nature and tribalism plays in addition to the loftier goals of political ideals and tolerance.
The thing that makes civil rights a big deal is that it affects people.
If you are against gay marriage or interracial marriage, that's a statement about how you feel about people. Gun control is a lot less about how you feel about people.
I think for me, and many others, gay marriage seems like such an obvious thing that I really question the ethics of one who opposes it. There is probably no other major issue in the US that I think is as obvious -- not immigration, abortion, climate change, gun control, taxes, health care, Russia, torture, etc...
Let's take affirmative action as a civil right - it's also an issue that will affect a lot of organizations: Some people consider opposing affirmative action as racist and anti-minority, and such a person unfit to be a CEO. Meanwhile others see affirmative action itself as racist (see Ward Connerly, from California Proposition 209) and sometimes discriminating against minorities too. This fundamentally leads to a similar clash - so who's right here on what the civil right is (e.g. anti-racism)?
Some will say that affirmative action is not an obvious thing you'd question the ethics of a person for. But oppose or support that sort of initiative and you'll be called a racist, sexist, etc. by at least one group, based on how you feel about certain groups of people.
Affirmative action is not a civil right. Equality is. Affirmative action is a method to tip the scales to achieve a goal, and it may or may not be effective. It's not the same as gay marriage. Not even close, IMHO -- and I'm a pretty big advocate of affirmative action in the US.
Interracial marriage is probably the closest "recent" legislation I could think of.
> We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public.
Except for the CEO, it seems.
I don't think what he did is right -- it should be pretty obvious to everyone by now that history is going to look unfavourably at all of us for dragging our feet on the issue he made a bigoted stand on -- but it seems a peculiar thing to include in the blog post announcing that your CEO stepped down because of his stance on a civil rights issue.
To be clear, what he did wasn't wrong either. You have a different opinion, and society as a whole is shifting to a different opinion, but that doesn't make his actions wrong.
Is it really that difficult to understand why the CEO would be treated differently in that regard? His job is to lead the company. It's hard to do that when many Mozilla employees fundamentally disagree with his stance on how their LGBT friends, coworkers, and family members should be treated in the eyes of the law. That's just the nature of the role.
So then should a CEO of a company in a rural conservative place, say Alabama, be forced to step down because he supports gay marriage, just because many of his employees disagree with him on that issue?
There is no such symmetry as you imply. The opinions under discussion aren't irrelevant. One opinion is that an entire group's freedoms ought to be restricted. Another is that the group's freedoms ought not be. These opinions are different, and the character of individuals having these opinions, with respect to their behavior towards others, is different.
It's irrational of your hypothetical conservatives in Alabama to react negatively toward that CEO, because that CEO is simply not arguing for the conservatives' freedoms to be suppressed.
The success of this campaign will certainly embolden others from both sides of the political spectrum to try to take scalps in this way. It is really a scary development.
Rest of the paragraph for understanding: "This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community."
They're saying they have a culture of openness in decision-making, but chose their CEO in a way contrary to that.
A CEO exists to serve the staff, the community and the world at large. Ditto for any leadership role. There is. Ton of laws and legal precident which enshrine this.
Given that context, yeah the CEO doesn't get to piss of the people he is supposed to lead.
Can I just be blunt? Eich has absolute freedom to say what he wants. He's free to campaign against same-sex marriage. He could campaign against interracial marriage, if he wanted to. Not a problem, and I'm deeply glad that this belief is deeply ingrained in US culture.
But the freedom to advocate any idea you want does not give an individual the right to be free of criticism from others.
The thing that has happened here is pretty simple:
- Eich was promoted to a highly visible community leadership position.
- Mozilla as a community organisation has a general policy of promoting diversity and equality in software development.
- Eich's personal views are not compatible with that position, and he was previously an active campaigner against some civil rights for LGBT people – a position which caused actual damage to members of the organisation he was CEO of, and others in the community it is a leader in.
- Eich failed to convincingly apologise, or explain and reassure the community that his views were acceptable.
- Members of the community and Mozilla who were directly affected by his actions, others who are their peers, and other people in the community in general, felt that Eich was, as a result, not a suitable candidate for such an important and visible position.
- Those people made their objections known, and Eich failed to control the controversy, eventually resigning.
I don't really know what else could be expected in this case. A bunch of people objected to his views (which is totally their right, considering those views were actively harmful to them), and he/Mozilla did not believe that his continued presence in the role would be effective.
Is the argument that we should completely ignore the personal views of people in important and visible leadership roles? That seems unrealistic, and would quickly fall down when presented in a slightly different light.
I'm deeply saddened by this whole affair — not because Eich has resigned, as much as I think he would have been an effective CEO, but because this discussion has to happen in the first place, and because prop 8 was even a thing.
AT least we'll be over all of this nonsense in a few years.
[citation needed]. Also, he supported a cause that the majority of the voters did. How can you prove that withholding his $1k or whatever, or even him advocating for the opposite position, would have changed the outcome of the vote, thus averting "actual damage" to people?
Sorry if this is overly snarky, nitpicky, emotionally charged. I guess every comment in these threads is, pretty much.
I can almost guarantee the opposite, if you want. If he'd not got involved at all, nothing would have changed.
That's really not the point is it, though? You can't say "Hey, this guy was campaigning for policies that objectively harm a group of people. But we can ignore that, because it wouldn't make a difference if we wasn't involved." If you did, there would be almost no personal moral responsibility for any action you took, subject to the condition that the outcome wasn't really altered by your participation.
To take it to an absurd extreme, it'd be a bit like saying "Okay, he was a KKK member, but he never actually beat anybody to death, and the KKK would still have existed, so it's okay."
So, the views he held and the campaign he actively helped caused objective damage to people. The rights and wrongs of that are irrelevant; the point is, it's ludicrous to claim that those people who were harmed should shut up and respect his "right to free speech" by way of not objecting to his appointment.
You're right, the "personal responsibility" argument was weak. I guess my point is, one guy is being bullied for having an opinion that the majority (of Californians who turned out for the vote, at least) had. He was just unlucky enough to be required by law to leave a paper trail, and has enough integrity to not back down from his beliefs under political pressure. I'm not saying "might makes right", but that this is still not commonly seen as equivalent to human rights[3]; that opposing gay marriage should not be equated with "hating gays"; and that by all appearances this political opinion had no affect on his treatment of people in his professional life.
You still haven't shown how this position caused damage. I do think it would be fairly easy to quantify in, say, lost tax benefits, but I'd just prefer that to be actually stated so everyone knows what's actually at stake, instead of using vague, emotional language like "harm, damage, wrong". It's not honest to pin all the discrimination and hate that gays experience, on just being denied marriage, which I feel is what's implied by being vague.
I feel like you've kind of Godwin'd this discussion by invoking the KKK. I really don't think you can compare terrorizing and killing people for the color of their skin or their religion, to voicing your opinion, as a part of society, on how a civil contract should be defined. It's easy to equate "KKK = pure evil" in today's age. Part of the reason I invoked the majority who supported Prop 8, is that, at least at that time, gay marriage wasn't such a settled issue to most people (in California, in 2008.) If you reject that relativist argument, I understand; but any comparison of lynching and legislating seems relativist too.
I don't think anyone is saying LGBT people should 'shut up and respect his "right to free speech"'. To be honest, I can't blame them for protesting. You had some good points about Mozilla's image and how this whole thing was sort of poorly handled. I guess what I and others are troubled by, is how many other people, out of fear or mob mentality, are jumping on the bandwagon, and what this means for the careers of anyone who ever wants to make any political statement. There are a few employees who are supporters of LGBT rights who did not object.[1][2] I hope for the sake of their future careers, that the taint of supporting Prop 8 isn't transitive! Maybe this thing is a win for LGBT, but more in a "opponents will shut up to avoid being torn apart by vocal supporters" way than "the majority of the people are happily supporting them."
At the risk of sounding like the slippery slope fallacy, how far does this kind of logic carry? Should women employees start calling for resignations of anyone who has donated to a Republican, because they oppose contraception or whatever? It sounds insane, but now that we've opened this door, why not?
[3]: One way to illustrate what I mean, is that it would be acceptable to many people if he took no position on it. On the other hand, it would be considered racist to most people to take no position on, say, "Are whites superior to blacks?"
This is stupid. Progressiveness and open-mindedness go BOTH WAYS. You have to be tolerant of people with different perspectives, or you can't call yourself progressive.
I don't personally agree with the stance Eich took politically, but making him step down as CEO of a company he is more than fully qualified to run? Because you don't agree with his views on gay marriage? Are you kidding me? Ludicrous.
I'm frankly surprised that more people don't share your point of view. I am personally for gay rights and gay marriage and the such but I a can also respect that people will have different views about the matter and that I don't assume that I am right and anyone with different views from mine is morally corrupt or evil, etc. That's intolerant.
Ah yes, the old "if you're truly tolerant you will even tolerate intolerance and hate" argument, a perennial favorite among bigots and those looking to distinguish themselves by their courageous adherence to "logic" in the face of social norms, but who have never been the target of intolerance themselves.
That perspective fails to address the issue of whether LGBT individuals are entitled to equal rights under the law, regardless of what name is used (e.g., "marriage", "civil union", whatever).
Not to say that the name doesn't matter ("marriage" vs. "civil union"--separate but equal?), but there's definitely more going on here than just a semantic disagreement.
This wasn't like donating to a politician who you agree with one on issue, who happens to have other views that you might not. He donated to a campaign with a singular goal, opposing equal rights for gay people. Hatred isn't a word I would use, but it does suggest a level of disrespect and arrogance toward the other side.
Jonathan Rauch makes almost exactly this argument you are trying to dismiss out of hand, and as a writer who's been openly gay since 1991, I think he has probably been the target of not a little intolerance.
Finding isolated in-group proponents of beliefs typically despised by that group is never hard (in fact, I'd argue that such proponents occur regularly but with low probability), so I don't find this argument compelling.
Also, the fact remains that the argument imo, no matter who is making it, is an exercise in word play and sophistry.
Obviously you're free to disagree with arguments like Rauch's, but calling his writing "word play and sophistry" just shows that you haven't actually examined it.
> So Progressives only preach them when it works in their favor.
Yes, it certainly seemed like "open-mindedness" and "tolerance" were some of the watchwords from progressives a decade back when supporting gay marriage was political poison. It's a pity the same standards aren't upheld when the tables have turned.
There's a difference between tolerating the viewpoint and tolerating the person. While a person may have archaic and bigoted views, forcing them to change only makes them more steadfast in their opinions. The reason there's been such a shift public perception of LGBT people these past few years is because more people are coming out and proving they're decent, normal people. Pressuring conservatives to quit their job for one political view only reinforces their opinion of X group trying to destroy Y tradition, and if this turns into a trend, I can imagine more organizations similar to Westboro Baptist Church sprouting up.
In situations like this, "killing them with kindness" really is the answer.
Jim Crow and freedom of speech are two different things.
I personally am ALL FOR equality independent of race, religion, or sexual orientation. I don't care what you do with your life.
I do believe people should be equal, and laws against that should be abolished, but that's my opinion. That's why we have voting and elected officials.
More importantly, democracy is also about being allowed to place dollars and votes in what YOU believe in independent of the current "accepted norms". It's not WRONG for someone to vote against equality, that's their right .... at least in this country.
Marriage equality is law in California. So yes, we should be tolerant of those that opposed it and lost. That battle is over here. And there's absolutely no indication that Eich evidenced anti-gay bias at Mozilla, in policy or attitude. (I am not one to stand on it, but there is a difference between being opposed to same-sex marriage as a single issue and being anti-gay.) By all accounts, he has gracefully accepted the result and moved forward. What benefit is there to be had by asking more of him?
"He said that his beliefs would not change the way he managed the company or how employees were treated at Mozilla. “I’m supporting all of the same benefits we’ve always supported across L.G.B.T. equality,” he said."
Do you even know that you are playing meaningless word games, of the form, "This statement is a lie" or "atheism is a religion"? You really think that "In order to be tolerant, you have to tolerate intolerance!" is a good argument, and not just self-referential verbal nonsense?
He wasn't saying "I hate gay people." He was saying "the institution of marriage shouldn't include gay people." That isn't cool, fine, but it's NOT the blanket 'hatred' and 'intolerance' everyone here is so adamant about.
Those terms are being tossed around too freely here.
If this really was his personal decision, then he would have written the press release, and the chairwoman would have issued a press release expressing support.
He might have thought that it was strategically better for him personally to step down instead of actually being fire, but no one believes that this was just his personal decision. He was forced out under duress.
Fundamentally as a leader of an organisation your personal public activity is related to your job.
When the CEO of GoDaddy shot an elephant for fun or when the Chairman of the Co-Op was caught buying meth, these were personal activities but they nevertheless influenced how people perceived the companies they ran.
A CEO needs to command the respect of those they lead, they need to attract the best talent and they need to build relationships. In all of these they will get judged based on their character which covers both their personal and professional behaviour.
When the Mozilla CEO wants to meet a politician, they will take into account his personal political activity. When conferences (both tech but also political like the World Economic Forum) decide who to invite they'll consider the overall reputation of speakers, etc.
It would be perfectly legitimate for Mozilla to decide that it's willing to accept the consequences of Eich's personal activity, it was crazy for them to think it wouldn't have any consequences though.
Which is a hateful policy, in my mind. It in effect says "controversial things are not worth talking about".
Hacker News is owned by a venture fund. It's not for talking, the talking is just a thing they have to allow to keep people coming back here. I'll leave the task of discerning the obvious goals of YC to run an off-brand subreddit to the reader.
You will see how he used politics to expend his influence on all the soviet agriculture: research, agronomy, industrial production. Not only that lead to a massive agricultural failure but as said Sakharov he was also "responsible [...] for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists".
I just read this, which Brendan Eich wrote last week, and proved insufficient to keep the job:
https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
I am deeply honored and humbled by the CEO role. I’m also grateful for the messages of support. At the same time, I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla. I hope to lay those concerns to rest, first by making a set of commitments to you. More important, I want to lay them to rest by actions and results... I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion...
I'm very glad to see people standing up to bigotry, but I'm not aware of any suggestions that Eich's feelings were affecting his job, or his employees.
Eich is certainly guilty of being an asshole, and his non-apology response did little to help matters, but I can't help but think that if we removed all the CEO's who are guilty of being assholes, the herd would be considerably thinned.
To be fair, Eich has never said he made a mistake.
I pretty strongly disagree with his views on Prop 8, HOWEVER, I wouldn't disqualify him on those grounds. I disagree with my own boss on a lot of things much closer to home, and yet I gladly work with and for him.
Did he ever say it was a mistake, did he ever apologize for it? no. he continually defended his right to do it and believe what he believes. That's about as far from a mistake as you can get.
This is going to come back to bite us when the political winds start blowing the other way. I'm disappointed in how short sighted our community has proven itself.
Maybe it doesn't make sense for there to be one "other way" for the winds to blow. But I think it's a fair point, that not standing up for free speech, could come back to bite us when one day our speech is an unpopular one and the internet hordes are screaming for our heads.
Of course there are the old debates about whether money is speech, and lots of people around here that don't think this speech deserves to be protected.
If you want a future as any sort of public figure, I guess you'd best not take any stand at all on any issue. At least that will work until the crowd decides that inaction is just as distasteful as taking an action they disagree with.
That they are led by either: above-average forward thinkers who always form opinions on the "correct side of history", liars who cover the tracks of having incorrect opinions, spineless people who never take stands on issues, or thoughtless people who can't be bothered to form opinions on issues. Well, at least the first one is a positive attribute.
To be fair, it's occurred to me that part of the issue is that Brendan will not retract his support or change his mind on this issue. So, you can take a position now, and retract it later, for less blowback. You may still be judged for ever taking it, or if your apology isn't "sincere enough", etc.
Wow. So instead of directly repudiating his previous actions, he chooses to step down?
This personally proves to me that he's both a bigot and unfit to be a CEO. If he'd have just directly apologized for the donation, we wouldn't be here having this discussion today.
For your expression of opinion may some day be used to provoke the wrath of an angry mob...
Anonymity helps somewhat. If instead of donating $1000 and putting his name on a public list he'd wait a few years and donate 1000 BTC to the same cause from an undisclosed address, Mozilla would have been forced to find something else to use against him in order to remove him from that position. Maybe just ask nicely instead of pulling these shenanigans.
Censor thyself. This is the world we're living in. It's just sound advice to help keep you safe. Not just from a state or a church, but from the everyday he and she, they and them.
I think he got what he wanted. He was the CEO of a tech company in San Francisco. If he's the kind of person that is willing to spend his own money to lobby for decreased human rights for a certain group of people that widely exists in his organization and community, he probably picked the wrong job.
A lot of people are saying, "he made one mistake, and now he's paying too high a price." Let me ask you: have you ever mistakenly donated $1000 to anyone? Didn't think so.
Whatever his opinion is, that is irrelevant to my post.
Pretty sure he didn't ask for an angry mob. I'm betting his life will be much harder now. His mistake, according to my post, was to express his opinion in public.
The moral of this story is that, for the well-being of oneself, all opinions should be kept private. That is the way things are.
A risky alternative to keeping them to oneself is to express them "anonymously".
If the opinion you're expressing is hateful and akin to calling fellow humans second hand citizens, then yes, you should probably censor that. Really, you should better yourself, but if not, then you probably want to be careful about making such statements in public.
Consider if he had donated to a charity trying to deny marriage rights to non-white people. I don't think you'd see much defense of his position.
You're saying that if an opinion is such-and-such, shut up. All I'm saying, is that the antecedent is irrelevant. You should shut up either way. Why?
You have an opinion. It is not shared by all people.
In circles where your opinion is disagreeable to many, it can be very easy to rally them against you. We've not (yet?) progressed beyond this. You may one day find yourself in such a circle, or near it. And one day your expression of that opinion, "hateful" or not, may be used against you.
So whatever your opinion is, keep it to yourself. It's a jungle out there. I do not envy Brendan Eich.
Well done the progressive community of bullies. The awful gay hater stepped down. We can all rejoice now.
The witch-hunt that unfolded was unfortunate to witness. People overheard "against gay marriage" and this lit up the fire. Few cared to actually look into the story. One donation was enough to paint him as an ardent homophobic. Despite the impeccable track record of 15 years in Mozilla (including 8 years as CTO).
I respect this person, despite his non-respectable belief in gay marriage.
While I disagree with his privately held position on marriage, I wouldn't necessarily imagine that his private views would translate into his public position. Obviously he has been an amazing and competent thought leader in this industry and somehow his personal views haven't seemed to surface in the past. And we can't even speak about his thought process behind his financial support. He didn't use company funds for it. I'm inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt that they can make competent, unbiased and professional decisions, not based on their privately held beliefs. I don't think he would have made it this far if he was just out hating on every homosexual he came across. Let's extend the same professional consideration to people that we ask for ourselves.
Putting aside moral arguments for a moment, if Eich didn't voluntarily step down Mozilla may be in a bit of a fix, as per California Labor Code - Section 1101:
>No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
>(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
>(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
I'm just going to say it. I think this is really great news. I clapped. Eich was a totally inappropriate choice. I'm happy and no longer disgusted by the thought of using Firefox.
He belongs in a little room somewhere contributing to languages, where his antisocial beliefs can be attributed to understandable engineering-personality dysfunction!
If this seriously made you "disgusted by the thought of using Firefox", shouldn't you be disgusted by using anything Eich ever touched? Better disable Javascript in your browser -- no, compile it out! -- no, stop using any browser that ever implemented it!
"and no longer disgusted by the thought of using Firefox"
You DO know that gays also have contributed to it too, don't you? So, which one will it be? Support something that was also supported by gays, or boycott something that was supported by anti-gays?
the role of the CEO is that the buck stops with them. they are not only a figurehead but ultimately responsible for everything at the company. way different
This wasn't going to end any other way. If his positions on gay marriage could be contained and isolated from the business then it wouldn't be an issue. Once OKCupid stopped serving those using Firefox, it was that much more clear that either he would have to concede on his political beliefs or that he would be removed.
He donated some money to support his believes. By doing so, he did not do anything bad to anyone. If you want to have a civil discussion on any topic, boths sides should be able to express their views, otherwise this is unfair.
He stepped down at the board's invitation. AKA He was fired. (1)
They can promulgate the idea that this was a mutual decision, but at the end of the day, anyone who knows Brendan knows he would never step down voluntarily.
Brendan's defining traits are his obstinacy and his ego about technology. Imagine saying only the language that YOU invented can be used for the web.
Oh and it's single threaded only, (gee that's the future!) and oh that 3D technology that Microsoft has had working since the early 90s still (WebGL in 2014) doesn't work for anything non-trivial.
Mozilla and Brendan Eich parting ways permanently is the best thing that could ever happen to Mozilla. (2)
What's the next civil right? Health care! It's only a matter of time before someone is berated and chastised into resigning from a top post because he/she doesn't believe that society should pay for their health care. After that?
I like to think of this issue in the most specific terms possible, rather than the most sweeping and abstract.
If, for just a moment, you can set aside the bluster, it's just one guy named Brendan having a chance to evaluate whether it was really worth it to him to donate $1k to prop 8.
