They should be protesting the fact that he's the person responsible for JavaScript. (Hey, don't forget to tip your waitress and try the veal!)
More seriously, there's the open question as to whether a career technologist is the right person for the CEO slot, especially since he appears to still be in the trenches when it comes to projects like Rust.
Beyond that, this is a cautionary tale for potential CEOs -- within reason, you can give money to politicians and money to foundations, but once you start giving money to specific political causes you're risking a firestorm, and rightfully so. While MoCo isn't exactly a Chik-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby, this is the sort of the thing that causes PR flacks to either wake up in a cold sweat (if they're employees) or start planning the color of their new Aventador (if on agency contract).
In related news, I seem to recall that it's technically against the law for the king or queen of England to be a Catholic. But at least no one in this latest Inquisition / Reformation analogue is being systematically imprisoned or executed for what they believe in and who they've donated to. So the world has made SOME progress.
Eich hasn't been involved in Rust for the three years that I've been watching the project. Whether he was involved before that, I don't know, but given the primitive and under-the-radar state of pre-2011 Rust it seems unlikely.
Meh. Prop 8 passed the people's vote with 7,001,084 Californians voting in favor of it and 6,401,482 voting against. Are we to start boycotting every company that employs one of those 7 million people?
I'm glad it was made right in the end and I hope at least some of those 7 million people have changed their opinion... but I don't think we need to keep dwelling on it.
Here's a couple of other differences that might be worth reflecting on:
1. What support Eich provided for proposed law vs actions he's likely to support as CEO -- in other words, what you can actually tell about Eich by the fact that he provided financial support for the law, and what you might know about him by considering a larger totality of his actions.
If you want a parallel, consider what Janis Ian has said about Orson Scott Card:
2. Now vs then. In 2008, the then president of the united states supported prop 8. The current president of the US was on record as not sure about it (and against gay marriage). If we're talking about the height of the profile of a position -- and you seem to be in making a distinction between an employee and CEO -- then I'd say leadership of Mozilla is pretty pale by comparison.
3. While Mozilla is arguably a "values" organization (presumably an important distinction), it's working in a sphere that's pretty orthogonal from identity-minority rights. If you'd argue that doesn't matter, I suppose that's one approach, but if so, I presume that you'd also decide that GLAAD should also be generally boycotted because of their 2011 support of the T-Mobile/AT&T merger and opposition to Net Neutrality principles.
I think we do not share the same opinion about the significance of those differences. But that is ok. I promise not to boycott your company because you have a different belief than me.
Welcome to Hacker News, bastion of intellectual freedom, where large number of people will now argue that you should be deprived of employment because you donated money to certain unpopular political campaigns.
Next steps include: calling for the resignation of anyone who voted Republican in a recent election.
That is a fantastically creative straw man you just beat up there...
Yes, because some people are boycotting a company because their founder voted to take away their civil rights, those people are bad. Nevermind the fact that the person they're criticizing not only voted for, but provided financial support for civil rights to be taken away.
But yeah, this basically means people will call for all Republicans to quit their job...?
It's pretty incredible how good Republicans are at convincing themselves they're the victim. In a country run by the Republican party based on Christian laws. Just lol, must be tough having people criticize you for taking away other people's rights. I feel terrible for you guys. Now those peoples rights you took away? Nah, they deserved it!
You seem to imply voting for a cause is okay, but donating $1000 to promote that cause crosses a line. I find this distinction curious. Where is the line? Is it the first penny donated? The first dollar? Dollar #999 of 1000? Does the relevancy of the donation last forever, or is it subject to time decay?
And maybe the CEO is more special than an ordinary employee, sure, but where do we draw the line on the person's job description? If a person who has donated to an unfavored group in the past is not an appropriate candidate for CEO anywhere anymore: Is he okay to be the CTO? COO? VP of Engineering? An engineering team lead? A project architect with technology leadership only?
And the cause: if donating to Prop 8 is bad, is donating to a politician who supported Prop 8 or legislation to similar effect bad? How about donating to the politician's party?
I don't see any great places to draw a clear line and say "Okay, if I keep this side of <x> about a controversial issue, it will be recognized as legitimate political activity by all people on all sides, and my career will not be subject to boycotts in the future." I mean, sure, it's great that you draw the line somewhere less ridiculous, but not particularly comforting in the big picture of things.
Any just cause could land on the wrong side of popular opinion eventually - indeed, this cause was on the wrong side of popular opinion only a few decades ago. And this really isn't the kind of principle of political interaction that you can cheer on in a content-neutral way: I therefore contend that we shouldn't cheer it on in a content-specific way either.
"You seem to imply voting for a cause is okay, but donating $1000 to promote that cause crosses a line. I find this distinction curious. Where is the line? Is it the first penny donated? The first dollar? Dollar #999 of 1000? Does the relevancy of the donation last forever, or is it subject to time decay?"
I didn't say that at all. You made that up and then ranted about it. I simply said that one is bad, but the other makes it even more bad. Its like anything else, doing one bad thing is bad, doing two bad things is more bad. This is pretty simple and probably doesn't require such a massive twisting of words...
I'm sorry. Since you were claiming that the "all republicans should be fired" line was such a straw man, I thought you were also offering a reason that the common Republican partisan should be exempted.
Given the absence of that as a reason, though, I'm even less certain where you think the line should be, and what makes the straw man so straw-y. Also, plenty of other people here have talked about why his being a CEO is special and what-not, so all readers should please substitute the opinion of speakers up-thread and down-thread for those of ryguytilidie.
Finally: as far as "victimhood" contests go, perhaps eventually we will look back on these days as we look back on the likes of the Reformation, when Protestants went to war with Catholics (over matters of no less import to the thinkers of the day), and pretty much both sides were pretty atrocious all around. Raid the monasteries for their gold? Sure, why not, they're a bunch of Papists! Spanish Inquisition? Don't mind if I do! Execution! Civil war! Fact: until last year, 2013, it was still illegal for someone married to a Roman Catholic to hold the throne of England.
The reason that we today are better than those backwards folks and haven't descended into outright civil war over this issue, like many nations did in the Reformation, is that we have some level of pluralism in our society. I would go so far as to hold that this is more important than correctly deciding today the issue of slavery, of civil rights, of women voting, of gay rights, or any other movement of that sort: because it is the principle which gives society the freedom to raise the questions which these rights movements addressed. As such I am distressed that it is so glibly dismissed in favor of a totalitarian approach and calls for boycotts of people who have been accused of doing nothing but supporting the wrong cause.
"I'm sorry. Since you were claiming that the "all republicans should be fired" line was such a straw man, I thought you were also offering a reason that the common Republican partisan should be exempted."
You simply posited, and I didn't believe you were actually serious, that Republicans would soon be locked up for their beliefs. I don't believe this needed to be seriously addressed because it is an utterly moronic point. Good luck with the rest of the crap you made up.
"As such I am distressed that it is so glibly dismissed in favor of a totalitarian approach and calls for boycotts of people who have been accused of doing nothing but supporting the wrong cause."
Glad you got to use totalitarian without knowing what it means. Congrats.
Votes are private. Donations are public. That's a material difference.
It's the public support that's really got people frosted. That's what makes it part of the public persona that you can't just leave at the door when you come to work.
Provided your power over others is limited, it's tolerable. But when people's careers are in your hands, a public history of open, gender-based discrimination really undermines the level of trust and goodwill that leadership positions require.
>> In a country run by the Republican party based on Christian laws.
> The USA is based on Christian laws?
Forget that. The USA is run by the Republican party??!? I guess the Senate and Presidency mean nothing, then. Likewise the situation just a couple years ago when those accursed Republicans were so busy passing Obamacare...
I did not compare the Democratic Party to the KKK, I was saying that it was the Democratic Party that primarily supported the KKK during most of its first two incantations.
Do not twist my words. If having a basic knowledge of U.S. history is being nuts, then so be it.
So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic)
party of small government became the party of big
government, and the (Republican) party of big government
became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power.
Add on the Republican Party's Southern Strategy of the 60's and 70's, and it's pretty clear which of the two parties a KKK member would choose today. If the Southern Strategy isn't familiar, I'll let Ronald Reagan's Campaign Manager sum it up:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.”
By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires.
So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights,
and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now,
you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things
you’re talking about are totally economic things and a
byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.…
“We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the
busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than
“Nigger, nigger.”
"I did not compare the Democratic Party to the KKK, I was saying that it was the Democratic Party that primarily supported the KKK during most of its first two incantations."
wtf. You said nothing remotely close to that...Reread if you'd like:
"Also, it's not like the Democrats (the party of the KKK)"
Yeah, thats just like saying that they primarily supported the KKK...
"Do not twist my words. If having a basic knowledge of U.S. history is being nuts, then so be it."
...just wow. lol man. Maybe try actually having basic knowledge of us history?
I think it's perfectly reasonable for developers to "keep dwelling" on someone telling them they should have less rights because of who they've chosen to love.
I doubt that vehement hatred of 7 million people's views will sway them to the cause either. It's just a bit hard to convince people to respect your beliefs while dancing atop their own--narrow-minded or otherwise.
Its scary how people jump to these conclusions once their views are those of the flavor of the month. I'd hate to be unemployable because my views don't confirm to that of the majority.
Imagine saying this to guy who attempted to stand up for civil rights in the 1920s. The world makes you believe that this type of thinking is gone when really its just painted a different color.
Well, if you don't buy the fundamental rights argument, let's try a simple utilitarian argument.
The computer industry, especially in Silicon Valley and San Francisco, employs an abnormally high percentage of people who identify as LGBT. The fact that your company will now have trouble recruiting from that group of individuals places your company at a business disadvantage and makes you unfit to lead such a business.
I completely get the issue. I, personally, support the right for LGBT individuals to get married. However its not about buying the argument
What I'm worried about is the social ostracizing of those who hold different political beliefs than you. At some point in time it was completely kosher to say the same thing about Blacks. At some point in time, a company that hired black individuals would have had trouble recruiting workers that would have given them a business advantage.
What worries me is that you could say the same exact argument for not hiring Black workers in the mid 1900s - the exact same you posted, and you seem to be completely cool with that. Theres a point where we are now using the same tools of suppression that were used on minorities of past on the now unfashionable opinions of today. I would have liked to think the human race has learned from that experience.
> What worries me is that you could say the same exact argument for not hiring Black workers in the mid 1900s - the exact same you posted, and you seem to be completely cool with that.
The problem is that your analogy doesn't go far enough.
The analogous situation would be: a company in the 1920's known for hiring an above average number of minorities suddenly appoints as CEO someone who donated to the KKK.
Of course it doesn't equal correct. That's the whole point of pluralism! There are some people out there who are on the wrong side of every issue, and maybe it would be nice if we could interact with them anyway instead of declaring their existence anathema, and punishing anyone who associates with their ideological impurities by boycotting them at every conceivable juncture. (Which was what was suggested, no?)
Not really. It is easy to sweep things under the rug when you're not one of those affected legally, financially, emotionally. I know of people who decided to leave their careers, their homes, and move to another country so that they could be with someone they love. Those decisions changed their lives and it isn't something that just goes away.
If this were any other company I don't think this would turn any heads. However, much of Mozilla's ethos and community support is built on ethical rather than capitalistic foundations. It's hard to reconcile thoughts on a company that seems to so value freedom in some areas but not in others [1].
[1] Inferring what Mozilla values based on the opinions of its CEO is not particularly fair, but then again I'm not sure it's unfair either.
Judge Mozilla on the actions of the organization, and the staff while performing their official roles.
What the staff does in other spheres of life, with their own time and money, is their own concern. It's a freer society, and a more pro-freedom organization, that grants individuals the widest range of actions and opinions when away from their official responsibilities.
The CEO position isn't "mascot" or "most popular" or "dear leader". (Those are cult-of-personality failure modes for a professional organization.) It's lead administrator, with specific on-the-job duties which involve essentially no electoral politicking nor meddling in employees' lives.
I think the not in "but not in others" is over-qualifying.
Saying that Mozilla does not value gay rights because of 1000 dollars, donated once, indirectly associated with Mozilla is a crazy given how much they actually spend directly on supporting the cause yearly.
I'm not saying that a care package for 1.000 dollars negates Eichs contribution. But you can't say they don't value gay rights either.
What type of person you choose to head your operations obviously reflects your ideals.
It really doesn't matter if Mr. Eich donated 1000 dollars or a million dollars, he opposes basic human rights. And apparently Mozilla is fine with that.
Does Mr. Eich still feel the same now as he did when he made that donation? I haven't done any research on this topic outside of the linked Ars article, but I find it interesting that Eich's own statement[1] about his donation completely avoids talking about his motivations for the donation. He even implied that he does not feel animosity towards gay people (although what he explicitly said was that the donation does not constitute evidence of animosity). So I'm left wondering as to what Mr. Eich actually feels on the topic.
Yes, he donated money to a cause that opposed basic human rights, and that's undeniably an action worthy of condemnation. But in isolation, this 6-year-old action does not prove anything about his feelings on the matter today. What matters right now is how Mr. Eich will lead Mozilla going forward, not personal acts taken 6 years ago that were not on behalf of Mozilla.
This isn't about gay marriage, per se. It's about carving out exceptions to the general writ of legal equality for all guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Then where's my native (do you still call them 'indians' in the US?) status card, my veteran benefits, and my handicapped parking permit? While we're at it why can't I get maternity leave or diplomatic immunity?
I'm actually married (religious ceremony) but not officially 'married' (according to the government) and I don't care nor does it really matter where I live (common-law spouses get benefits anyway). And I'm not even against gay marriage, I just don't 'get' why it's a big deal...
Anyhow, I'm sure there's plenty of other exceptions when it comes to equality... Old people, minorities, pregnant women all get preferential treatment in a variety of circumstances, and it's not a bad thing...
In the UK, civil partnerships were introduced for same-sex couples, which gave AFAIK the exact same legal rights and tax benefits as heterosexual marriage. However, campaigners for gay marriage said this was not good enough so the Prime Minister eventually pushed through a vote for gay marriage. So it seems the issue wasn't really about legal rights, that just comes along for the ride, it was more about using the word "marriage".
Similar thing when it comes to marriage ceremonies. Why lobby the state to try and force a religious institution to hold a same-sex marriage ceremony when the teachings of that religion are clearly against same-sex relationships? Can't we accept that in the diversity of opinions out there, some are like chalk and cheese? They simply don't go together so why force the issue and make everybody unhappy?
What I find interesting about this last point is that campaigners only focus on the Christian religion. It seems nobody wants to try and force mosques and synagogues to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Why is that?
Well either the government is separate from religion in which case it's legal definition on the rights of marriage theoretically has no bearing on the religious component or it is part of the religion in which case it can decide how it wants it's religion to develop. I can't speak to civil unions in the UK but in New Zealand there were definite rights that were excluded from civil unions (adoption being one) so the argument to have it be recognized as one entity so that distinctions can't be made is a fair one.
As to forcing a church to marry two people I'm torn. I put it in the ball park of refusing to marry those of a different race or have mixed race weddings. I think you can make the argument that any religion that has a form of tax exemption could be required to not discriminate and hold basic human rights. Ofcourse it's a bit of a mire as you could argue back and forth all day between the "state opression of religion" to the "no they can't make human sacrifices" extremes.
As to the mosque/synagogues stuff I'd assume any law that was created would hopefully lead to a lawsuit (from the muslim/jewish/XXX couple or human rights group) which would show that the law did apply to those institutions. But I agree political discussion is generally avoided out of either the fact that they're a smaller part of UK culture or fear of inciting violence(even if this fear is unjustified) or being called a racist(or the theological equivalent (I for one wouldn't like to be called a theist ;) ). I think the "and they are lynching negroes" point is going to be a particularly useful one for the catholics/christians to argue.
Well, the state is church and church is state in UK, so there is no surprise people want to control what Anglican church does or does not in UK. The sovereign is also the defender of faith and acts on advice of Parliament on temporal and spiritual issues. If UK were to adopt Islam as state religion tomorrow, we can also talk about forcing the mosques to do stuff according to will of Parliament.
Here is an example from the UK, August 2013 (not sure what the current status is). I have no dog in this fight but to me this does not seem like tolerance on the part of the gay couple, this action comes across as somewhat spiteful.
"Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church.
The first legal challenge to the Church of England's ban on same-sex marriage was launched today - months before the first gay wedding can take place.
Gay father Barrie Drewitt-Barlow declared: 'I want to go into my church and marry my husband.' He added: 'The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the Church.'
The legal move means an early test for David Cameron's promise to the CofE and Roman Catholic bishops that no church would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings against the will of its leaders and its faithful.
...
'It upsets me because I want it so much - a big lavish ceremony, the whole works.'
You'd be surprised, some people think non-profits shouldn't be allowed to follow their beliefs (if those beliefs discriminate against whatever the cause célèbre is).
The Commonwealth has different restrictions on interference with churches. There is no constitutional guarantee in the UK. Similar to how common law countries generally limit freedom of expression to not include hate speech.
I agree with your reasoning that arbitrary advantages could be viewed as discrimination. I'd argue though that in those cases the goal is to cancel out disadvantages (directly or inderectly) directly related to inherent parts of a person (sex,handicap,race) or are benefits that a person can generally choose to acquire (old age,veteran,handicap;) ).
In the case of maternity leave it cancels out the propensity to fire/not hire a woman because she can get pregnant and is likely to be required to raise the kid for the first few months. Native cards to reduce inherent inequality produced by past events. Handicap to allow the handicapped to function to a level similiar to the non handicapped.
Were as age benefits in theory apply to anyone who doesn't croak and presumably if they so desired. Veterans choose to serve the country and are compensated by society at large, admittedly you could argue not all people can join the military so fair point there. Food stamps, just lose all your money.
So onto gay marriage. Marriage is both a legal construct and a religious construct but the government can only recognize the legal part (seperation of church and state). Now the government is currently not recognizing that the couple can be together based on the sex of the partners which is something they can't change (reasonably(you could argue for separate drinking fountains on the basis that skin colour can be medically altered if you think this is reasonable)), you can argue that the marriage is for reproduction but sterile couples can get married, you could argue the child is adversely affected this has been shown not to be the case, you could argue friends will cheat the system but that can already be the case, the issue is the government has no reason to grant the various special right (tax,visitation laws, adoption) to a couple based on the sex of the people in the couple.
The key to that argument is that the government can't use the religious part of marriage as a basis for their decision. It's also worth noting that even if the government allows gay marriage that only guarantees you can get married in a courthouse, nothing about churches would be guaranteed (or in theory enforceable if they decided to say you could).
I can also agree that your reasoning is correct that a spherical rooster you modeled will roll off the roof. Doesn't mean you're right to argue that roosters can't stand on roofs.
Would my reply have been more useful if it did not acknowledge you have some reasonable points and instead just ignored anything you had said as you apparently feel is the appropriate way to frame this discussion. If that's the case I would expect it's safer to dismiss your view than someone's who does not subscribe to that particular philosophy.
More to the point I agree with your quote:
>> I agree with your reasoning ... (some stuff) ...
>Awesome.
>Let's boycott and protest everyone who does ... (some stuff) ...
Or be allowed to be included in the will of your loved one, or be allowed to visit them in the hospital, or be allowed to attend their funeral if your loved one's parents don't like you...
Can we argue it now?
Prohibiting same sex marriage is the government asserting that it is not possible for two people of the same sex to love one another, by any definition that would allow them to be considered legally "family", and that is definitely not equality.
How about a guy who donates to people who are homophobic bigots and who make being homophobic bigots a central part of their schtick? Like this guy, who Eich donated money to (it's on OpenSecrets): http://www.tommcclintock.com/press-releases/mcclintock-calle...
There's a pattern here. This issue is one that's important to Eich. I will certainly judge him on that and judge those who empower him and there's absolutely nothing fascist about exercising my freedom of association.
What a crazy idea, that it's somehow "fascist" to criticize a company based on the political activities of their CEO, but I can only assume "not fascist" to restrict the rights of minorities.
Even if Mozilla started actively discriminating against people and campaigning against minority rights I would have no problem taking the code and starting a forked version. IMO that's what's so great about FLOSS, if you disagree with how something is managed you can ignore the people who created it and start your own version along with other people who agree.
So I wouldn't really be worried about the current state of affairs. If people want to boycott then they can do that, but I doubt it will have much effect unless Eich starts going insane, in which case Google will probably cut their funding. In that case we can all start hacking on Iceweasel and forget about it. Yay for free libre open source software!
Yes that's the fantasy. The reality is you can't just casually fork a project as big as mozilla. The only way that codebase stays even barely maintained with security bug fixes, is with its army of coders. The great thing about FLOSS is that it's POSSIBLE. The not so great thing about it is, in many cases you're probably better off just starting from scratch.
In the hypothetical scenario that Mozilla management decides to start discriminating against gay people I think we can count on the support of many of the people who are familiar with the codebase. Would you agree?
I find hypothetical scenarios quite challenging.
I suppose it's possible the people within mozilla may pull another "mozilla" and spawn a new company made out of many of the same people to maintain its codebase.
I think it's more likely Mozilla, as an organisation, would fire or enfeeble Brendan Eich before that happens.
I only recently learned about the donation, so you have no idea the cognitive dissonance I have been going through.
I believe that, as a champion and a leader, you can't get anyone better than Brendan Eich for the free software movement. But as a symbol, and a figurehead, the donation is really problematic. If it had never come to light, if he had never revealed his inner feelings about homosexuals, would it be a problem for mozilla with him in this role? Maybe, I doubt it though. I think he is utterly professional at keeping those things seperate and interior.
On the other hand, it could very much affect his leadership abilities if he ever has to work directly with someone he knows to be gay. Or many someones. Or an entire company of someones.
This is not to justify his donation. Which was a bad bad idea on his part, and bad ethically speaking too, not just because he got caught. but that I think it's not enough to discard a whole person over.
But on the other hand..
can you sense my cognitive dissonance?
Agree. To me, Mozilla is much more than a company. It's more like family. It's purpose is to set a high moral ground and place values over anything else. With that in mind appointing someone whose moral standing is questionable, makes this decision hard to accept.
I guess it was silly of me to imagine mozilla as something larger than life/more than a run of the mill company.
I'm sorry, but you made a mistake of projecting your own beliefs and value system onto Mozilla.
Mozilla is simply a technology organization and their mission is to promote a free and open web. It is not human rights, animal rights, or anything else.
If Brendan Eich believes in a free and open web then he is the right person for the job.
I don't either - I believe in governmental civil-unions for all, and the marriage ceremony (or not) of your own choosing and would allow for stricter contracts to be signed among willing parties.
No, I think for any major or known company this would turn a lot of heads. Any CEO that has ties to homophobia or whatever you want to call it is going to get talked about. But, I will say given the kind of culture Mozilla seems to support, it is an odd choice.
It has to do with our money (via Google ad revenue) going to a corporation headed by someone who cared enough about harming us to spend $1,000 to do so. All I can says is that when I see this from people we otherwise respect, I feel like I'm physically reliving a kick to the ribs from high school.
I'd consider it more if Prop 8 hadn't been overturned. But as it stands, he hasn't used his personal platform to speak on the subject or use Mozilla's resources to do so. If that changes, I'll reevaluate.
Usually I'd say you might be right. But I really have this sweet spot for mozilla. They're an NPO and Firefox 1.0 basically fixed the web.
I don't know, it's hard.
I clearly disagree with his political opinion. But then again, is using chrome any better? Thats Google after all, which I hate to love and love to hate. (And at the end of the day, Google is still just an Ad company!)
I don't know it just sucks. Maybe we can try to seek a dialogue with him?
I mean if he works for Mozilla he can't be that dumb.
His last public comment on this issue was in 2012, where he basically didn't actually comment.
And quite honestly, as a gay man, I would rather use Chrome and have Google profit over my personal data, VS touching Firefox now. The Mozilla Board clearly knew about this issue (it was quite a big deal when the news first broke), and this should have something they considered. If Eich changed his views, then he should have clarified before them formally announcing this. Mozilla making this choice yells to me that they don't give a crap about me and others like me. Even if logically that doesn't make sense, there's this visceral emotional disgust and pain.
I agree it's tough, but who you choose to lead you says a lot about who you want to be. I don't personally want to support a company that wants a dude with the morals of Eich pointing the way.
(I don't care for Larry Page much, either, but there's less active attacking of other folks' rights up in the Googleplex. Google's actions with regard to ads and my data don't really bug me, so that isn't a factor to me.)
"what the fuck has an affair to do with their political views?"
Uh, integrity? If a politician won't keep probably the most solemn vow they've ever made, to the person they were most committed to in their life, in front of all the other people they care about most, why the fuck do you think they'll keep some fucking campaign promise to you and a bunch of other faceless citizens they've never met to make your lives better, instead of taking a backhander from some lobbyist to fuck you all over instead?
And if they're not going to keep their campaign promises (yeah, yeah, no need to point out the incredible naïvety of that particular "if") then why should you let them stay in a position of power that they can use to better themselves at your expense? Boot them out, get the next one in, and keep doing it until they learn the lesson that we fucking demand better.
I don't know what kind of world you want to live in, but one where we've already given up and don't even try to maintain a pretense of holding our politicians to account for their honesty isn't the one I'm going for.
That's a terrible example. It would only be a career killer among people with a propensity toward intolerance. And there are plenty of places, some of which are represented by politicians with unconventional relationships, that don't care.
Oh, you're almost certainly correct. Absolutely, there's the right thing to do which involves telling the truth but could cause difficulties, and then there's the easy "political" lie you can tell to try to stay popular and keep your career humming along and your salary rolling in.
But no-one said doing the right thing was easy. And you've still totally failed to convince me that I want the second type of person claiming to represent me in government.
"If a politician won't keep probably the most solemn vow they've ever made, to the person they were most committed to in their life"
Not to stray from the point of the article, but the politician analogy is very appropriate. My wife is a former lobbyist, and I've met and grown to know many prominent politicians from a behind-the-scenes perspective.
The number of arranged marriages, to the point that it's mostly a business relationship, is really common, especially at the national level. Most of the time, the politician's "spouse" is really just their operations manager.
Well this is a bit high and mighty. I think you're ethical standard is a bit naive. As well, marriage being the most "solemn vow," that's sort of a personal thing and subject to many different norms.
It may be more emotional than logical, but I personally would find it very difficult to work for someone who would deny me the right to marriage because I'm an atheist.
Personally, politicians' affairs only really bother me if they ran on a "family values" platform. Then it's just straight up hypocrisy, especially if they are caught in a gay affair because "family values" is a euphemism for anti-gay.
I think an affair is a little different than trying to affect political change. What if he was a white supremacist? No big deal because if a white supremacists writes qsorts, it's still O(nlogn)? That may seem a bit extreme but it's essentially like this. A CEO is in some a ways political animal and is certainly a representative of an organization. I think political causes are different from affairs. However, he hasn't done anything against the law here but I don't think it is unreasonable for people to want to boycott.
I've got no problem with someone campaigning to end hetero marriages. State marriages make no sense to me. The State shouldn't be granting special rights and privileges to people unless there is a good reason, either one of social benefit or of trying to make up for unfair disadvantages that those individuals suffer.
I'm not sure what social benefit marriage is supposed to confer. If it's to do with raising of children, then clearly only those who have a child should be able to get married. If it's to do with committed relationships being good for society, then anyone in any kind of committed relationship (and not necessarily a sexual one) should be able to get married.
If you can't point to any specific benefit that marriage is supposed to bring to society, then it just looks like the state is trying to control peoples sexuality which is weird, and there's no need for it at all.
If you can point to a specific benefit, then that benefit should be the benchmark for who can and who cannot get married.
tolerance is a two way street. would it be OK for conservative muslims to protest a gay CEO? no. in a democracy and in a world with many differing points of view at some point you just have to tolerate each others beliefs, regardless of how much you oppose them, and just get along.
edit: and now my words are being twisted. I never said being gay was a belief. what one person thinks of a proposed law is a belief.
edit edit: tolerance is not "I am OK with the gays but will never freely associate with one of them" nor is "I am tolerant of his views on gay marriage but I hate him and will never have anything to do with him".
tolerance is" I hate what you think/belive/lifestyle/god/wear but I won't hold it against you". my sister frequently nurses racists who are very rude to her. she tolerates then as gives them as good care as she gives anyone else. that is tolerance.
welcome to democracy. people have different opinion. they have different religious beliefs and different upbringing. just get along people.
Nobody's saying Eich can't donate to whatever causes he wants. But free speech has consequences, and one of them is people not associating with you when you do shitty things. He did a shitty thing and Mozilla is endorsing his shitty thing with its own actions and so people don't really want to get chummy with them.
That's not intolerance, that's freedom of association.
But I think you already knew that.
EDIT:
> tolerance is" I hate what you think/belive/lifestyle/god/wear but I won't hold it against you".
This is the nonsensical redefinition of "tolerance" that I notice is increasingly preached by those who realize their regressive opinions are increasingly considered unacceptable by a growing majority. It does not reflect the actual definition. It is dishonest.
Tolerance is respecting your right to have your regressive, hateful opinions. And I would never suggest that Eich does not have the right to have them. Even to donate money to those causes. But that also means I have the right to avoid using products that benefit him because I do not want to give patronage to people who would do as he does. You don't get a get-out-of-jail-free card about being reprehensible just because you really firmly believe something.
He spent his own money to try to make me a second class citizen. Am I supposed to "tolerate" it when someone has actively tried to take away my rights?
Sure, I'll tolerate his views, he can believe whatever he want. I honestly don't care... except for the fact that he took the first shot by donating money to actively screw people like me over.
Like much in the field, this is something of an open question. You can fill literal libraries with material on this subject and still not get a clear cut, concise answer to this.
However if you honestly believe it is a choice, then I have to ask you when you decided what your sexuality would be. Because chosing your sexuality is an experiance I cannot relate to.
It's likely a mixture of genetics, hormones, and social factors. What's interesting to me is that homosexuality can be found in hundreds/thousands of animal species from high-order mammals to cephalopods. Whether or not being gay is a choice or is genetic or whatever else, it's clearly natural.
I'm trying to keep this in perspective with all the massively positive things that Mozilla has done over the years. I've used Firefox all the time, proclaimed the value of Mozilla to others, and even donated to Mozilla. Regardless, I'm having a hard time getting past this. I started up Firefox this morning, and almost immediately, I felt dirty. I closed it and switched over to Chromium.
I can't buy the argument that it's just his personal political opinion and that the type of inclusion that Mozilla wants to have requires a large ecosystem of diverse opinions. Perhaps on issues like income inequality, taxation, foreign policy. Hell, if this was about him being a massive gun-rights advocate, I could see myself budging on not letting it bother me like this.
Sorry, but human rights are human rights, and contributing to a effort to deny a group of people a right that everybody else enjoys based simply on their sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, or culture is as disgusting a human behavioral trait as it comes. It needs to rooted out from our collective human identity.
I don't necessarily want to see Eich removed. His contributions to free and open source software are incredibly significant and deserve praise. However, simply pointing out Mozilla's health care policies isn't going to cut it. Without anything more significant, an apology or something, I'm just going to see Firefox and Mozilla as tarnish under a shade of bigotry. It's not a purposeful perspective, or something I will enjoy, but I can't just let this slide away like it's nothing.
Will you boycott every company that has an employee that has belief that isn't yours? Isn't that the definition of intolerance? One of those things, I guess, can't tolerate the intolerant =).
No, that's not what I argued. I agree with the notion that there's room for honest political disagreements within a community. However, I consider equal treatment of LGBT people to be a human right, and human rights don't fall under the spectrum of honest political disagreements.
Honest political disagreement are about the hows of accomplishing the humanity's goals of equal liberty and justice for all. Anti-marriage-equality advocates are about the outcome of said equal liberty and justice; that is, preventing it for LGBT people and treating them as second-class citizens.
> One of those things, I guess, can't tolerate the intolerant =).
That's not accurate. I can tolerate the intolerant. I'm not asking for their civil liberties to be taken away like Prop 8 attempted to take away from LGBT people.
All I'm stating that I'm not going to be as supportive and praise of Mozilla and Firefox as I used to be. Don't get me wrong, Mozilla is still a great organization made up of wonderful people, and the whole organization shouldn't be ruined by the actions of one member. But that this one person now is the head of the organization tarnished it significantly.
Gosh. I’m really upset not by the news about Eich as the new CEO, but about learning that such an idol in my life is anti-LGTB. I really hate this kind of situations.
Maybe it would be appropriate to ask him why he was against it before deciding he's anti-LGTB. I'd imagine that, being an intelligent and capable human being, he deserves the consideration of hearing his case before you knock him off the pedestal.
Sadly, he doesn't explain himself at all. He says he has no animosity, but provides no explanation for how such a thing could be done without it.
I imagine he thinks he has a sound, non-hateful reasoning behind his position which will not be taken as such if discussed. In context, I'd guess he's probably wrong about it being sound and non-hateful. Often, being unwilling to discuss one's positions is part of your brain trying to tell the rest of you that you've got it wrong. Not always, obviously, but I'd say it's the way to bet.
In any case, if you're willing to make a public stand on something (and given the political finance laws he donated under, it qualifies as a public stand) then you should be willing to discuss your stand. If he's not willing to discuss it then we don't necessarily have to assume the very best.
Note that the linked-to article explicitly says he's willing to discuss this in private, and Brendan _does_ answer his mail. You're obviously under no obligation to do so, but you if you care to find out what he was thinking you could contact him and ask.
I _do_ wish he were willing to discuss this in public, though. People talking to him one on one obviously doesn't scale.
Likewise. I have, in my naivety, believed that the people I admire for their skill are also fair. For me, I just felt a bit sad to hear that he held these views.
I am very sorry that some people are upset with the political opinions of other people.
Now can somebody get this political bullshit off the front page of HN? Please? Nothing productive can come from a logical and reasonable conversation with people who are, by definition, very upset. Half the posts here are "hell yeah!" and the other half are baiting arguments from others who feel impassioned by the issue. Not a good topic.
This issue is uncomfortably political for HN, but I feel like I should chime in to say that HN is clearly not split down the middle about support for Eich's political position. I haven't seen a single comment defending it.
I'll happily defend the man's right to hold all sorts of inappropriate and unpopular opinions. Do we want the tech community to be some kind of PC witch hunt, where people who say or do unpopular things will be banned from employment?
If that's the case, then that's wrong -- and it hurts the tech community at large for it to be that way.
This is a witch hunt. It may be a witch hunt for good reasons, and for a cause I support (which I do), but let's get it clear: people are protesting because somebody has a job that has opinions they don't like. That's not a healthy attitude for any community and any job.
I don't care if the man's a nazi. We live in a free country where diversity of opinion, problem-solving skills, and life experiences are invaluable for creative and productive team performance. This kind of thing is horrible and detestable, no matter what the man thinks in private.
If he's a criminal, fire him. If he proposes some policy that is bad for his company, fire him. If he has some personality defect that is bringing harm to Mozilla's name, fire him.
Otherwise? Leave him alone and let him do his job.
So let's play this through in an imaginary scenario.
Next year I decide I like my neighbor, who's running for governor in the American Nazi party. I write him a check for $500.
So now I can't work in the tech industry? Really? And this makes sense to folks?
So you're saying thinking is okay, but acting is not. So is there some list of things I can and can't do and expect to have a job? Or is it just made up off-the-cuff by anybody with an internet search and an axe to grind?
Do you realize how chilling this is? We're going to raise an entire generation of tech leadership who are acutely tuned never to do anything publicly that might indicate they have an opinion -- and are smart enough to hold all their real feelings inside, no matter how terrible. It's bad for those folks, it's bad for the industry, and it's bad for the rest of us. It's just bad all the way around.
We all have to vote the same way, give money to the same causes, say the same things -- or face collective group punishment. And this seems sane?
Please come up with a different scenario, because you're never going to convince me that it's wrong to try to discourage you from putting me in a concentration camp, or taking any steps to put in power someone who would.
Sure, discourage me. Come out in the public square and let's have it out. You use your powers of free speech and persuasion and convince me I'm wrong. If I feel strongly about my opinions, I'll do the same to try to persuade you that you're wrong. Democracy at work.
Start poking around to find whatever job I have and then try to get me fired? Really? That counts as "discouragement" in your book?
You realize, of course, that there are some folks with really nasty opinions out there, folks who would do all the things you mention. Folks who would bring back slavery. And so on.
I must have missed the big public outrage over these folks where we try to get them fired and otherwise interfere with their personal and work lives because of their political opinions. I also missed the part where this became acceptable behavior.
What about folks who think substantial U.S. carbon emission restrictions aren't a smart or effective policy and politically donate to that effect? There are likely a lot of people here who believe passionately that such inaction will lead to an uninhabitable planet. Serious, life-and-death stuff. Worth trying to get someone fired from their tech job?
I think there's a big difference that comes down to motivation. Somebody who tries to get a Nazi elected wants, at some level, for me to die. Thus, I cannot trust them to treat me well.
Similarly, somebody who tries to get a gay marriage ban passed thinks that consenting adults should be prevented from marrying, and since there are no good rational reasons to do that (it's possible that there are some, but none have ever been presented to me, and there has been opportunity) then it indicates not only a prejudice against homosexuals, but a willingness to interfere in their lives. Again, they can't be trusted to treat homosexuals well in other contexts where they might have power.
Somebody who fights against carbon emission restrictions isn't doing it because they want the planet to die. Instead, they have examined the information and come to a different conclusion. You might say it's the wrong conclusion, and I'd completely agree with that, but that is ultimately a failure of brainpower rather than of motivations. They presumably have good reasons for why they act that way, which means they can be reasoned with. That makes it much more feasible to deal with them, and ultimately makes them much less harmful.
How about people that donate to fight the existence of polyamorous marriage licenses? Do you want to get them fired?
> there are no good rational reasons to do that
If you lived in the south bay area like I do, you'd suffer far more oppression from people with houses that oppose any and all kinds of development, than you would from the government not recognizing gay marriage (if you were gay). These people cost me thousands of dollars per year, and they make poorer people even worse off, driving them out of high-rent communities into far more dangerous areas and making them spend time and energy commuting. If some home-owner from west of El Camino that donated to the "Residents First" candidate's campaign in the Mountain View city elections became the CEO of Mozilla, how should I feel then? His cause is based in purely wicked selfishness, not some arbitrary nonsensical moral axioms or reasoning that you might call irrational.
At least Eich donated against Prop. 8 because he thought it was the right thing to do. He didn't gain any personal benefit from that donation -- it was at quite direct harm to himself (to the tune of $1000). That donation is actually a positive sign of moral character, relative to most people's bland non-contributing apathy. He just has bad moral axioms or couldn't think about this matter rationally.
> Again, they can't be trusted to treat homosexuals well in other contexts where they might have power.
I don't think you have an accurate model of how the average pious Christian that lives in California would behave (assuming that's the root cause of Eich's choices). You've come to false conclusions about what donating to anti-gay-marriage causes implies about one's personal attitude towards gay people. I'm sure there's some form of hypothetical marriage license that you wouldn't be in favor of, but that doesn't mean you're bigoted against those people. The state doesn't approve of anything but nuclear family marriage and its same-sex facsimile. I don't think that you'd be evil or couldn't be reasoned with if you believed that the state should encourage this social structure, it's just that your moral axioms or your views on what marriage is for are (probably) different than mine.
Actually, I'm just trying to be persuasive. The real reason you're wrong is that your opinion is built on your delusion that you and other people have free will, specifically, that of Eich having it. Going from the free will to no-free-will perspective, your attitude towards Eich maps to an attitude towards the universe being imperfect. So it happens to be imperfect in a way visible at the top of Mozilla. Big whoop.
Your distinction between selfless and selfish actors is interesting, because I reach the opposite conclusion. In my opinion, the most dangerous and frightening people by far are those who sacrifice in order to hurt others. Most people are selfish. I can understand them and I can deal with them. If I need something from them, I just have to figure out what they would want that they value more than what I want, and arrange a trade.
I can't understand your last paragraph at all. I'm not sure that free will is even a coherent concept, let alone a real thing, but I also don't see how one can possibly live without assuming it.
The internet at its best: a hundred thousand people in a feel-good mob all on a joint rant about somebody who has done something rude and/or unpopular that we can all emote with one another about.
You don't have to take part in this discussion if you don't want to. You don't even have to click on the link.
If you're a public place, and some group of people that you don't otherwise know are having a conversation amongst themselves, do you go up to them and tell them, "I don't care about you are talking about." You probably don't, right? Because it would be weird.
Turns out the same thing applies for the Internet.
I'd like to urge everyone to consider whether it's a good idea to comment on this story. If you voice an opinion in support of Eich, obviously that's going to be a liability in the future. But voicing an opinion against him is also a liability - there is no telling how the zeitgeist might change ten or twenty years from now. I think it's best to voice no opinion at all - and I hope this comment is not misconstrued as support for any particular position.
And I would argue that fighting against marriage rights (for LGBT) is our version of Jim Crow laws. History will show that people; all people deserve equal rights and protections under the law. Desegregation took decades, and arguably still isn't completely successful, given laws that disproportionately target black communities.
And this isn't about a church refusing to marry someone because of their sexuality. This is about governmental rights and legal rights conferred to married couples.
Or on a more dour note: What happens if a homosexual couple moves to a state that bans that practice, and they choose to divorce?
If it's important, shouldn't people be able to have a conversation, and fund a conversation?
The supreme court has equated financial contribution with speech, and many of us agree with that position.
Therefore, we can only see this as an attempt to ostracize and attack anyone who speaks to the opposite side. This action is chilling on speech, which is exactly what the OP was talking about. Just because you don't see it that way, doesn't mean it isn't, and won't be perceived by others that way.
I think proposition 8 was the wrong thing, promoted for bad reasons and on the wrong side of where society needs to be, but I also happen to feel that this attempt to quash any possibility of opposing free speech by ensuring to mob anyone who rises to the top having once taken a view we don't agree with as far more dangerous and harmful for our society than prop 8 could ever have been. It enforces positions without the liberty of allowing speech, and without the ability to challenge in court, as bad laws do.
Simply "taking a view we don't agree with" isn't the same thing as actively funding an effort to take away the rights of others, including ones who work in the company you're managing.
While there are situations where the exercising of speech in that manner can cause harm (e.g. very large contributions to politicians), I believe that harm is outweighed by the good. No on can outlaw me donating to the EFF, or other charitable organizations, which would most certainly happen when it suits the lawmakers' purposes, given that it is enshrined as speech and protected by the 1st amendment. Just like the first amendment protects hateful speech, it also protects beneficial and helpful speech. Perhaps you're not thinking of Buckley v. Valeo, but instead of Citizens United, that countered that speech could not be restricted because it was done by a corporation. I am not venturing into that territory here.
There is almost always some harm done by liberty, that is the pain of humanity. There is much further harm done when we restrict liberty to protect the senses. That is my opinion, and I am as surely unlikely to be swayed from it as you are yours.
I was not up on my case law regarding Buckley v. Valeo, but I do remember now after having looked it up. Unfortunately, I don't have the legal backbone to discuss case law proper. I was trying to discuss more akin to philosopher language.
After having slept on why money in politics bothers me, I think I can better explain why it does.
Normally, a vote from me counts as the same as a vote from any resident in Indiana. And I can extrapolate that to show that my vote is pretty much equal to any citizen in the US. When we add money, it changes that "1 person, 1 vote" to "1 rich person, lots of votes: 1 poor person, 1 vote"
When we distill that down, we are saying that a rich person is much more important than an average income person, or even that homeless indigent voters are worthless. That doesn't sit right with me.
I agree it's pretty bad, but not being able to marry is not as severe as segregation and discrimination in almost everything (and against a much larger portion of the population.)
I don't think those are very good reasons to refrain from voicing your opinion. If everyone had that mentality I don't think the world would be a very good place. There's certainly a handful of instances where you should keep your opinion to yourself (such as in the workplace), this is not one of them though.
I think it's easy to predict where things are going with this topic: no discrimination and equal rights for all. That has been the steady march of progress for a very long time, and it will continue onward. Of course it doesn't happen without setbacks, but we all know where things will end up eventually, simply because it's the right thing to do.
I agree. Posting HackerNews comments in favor of gay rights is going to haunt you 20 years later, because clearly homosexuality is becoming less accepted over time.
I have no problems going on record with this: I did not (and continue to not) support Prop 8. I do not support Eich's decision to fund the prop. I do support his right to fund the prop. I do not support a boycott of Mozilla solely because Eich was appointed CEO. My opinion of Firefox remains unchanged and I will continue to use it with the same (low) frequency I have for the past few years.
What a sad example of meandering with the party line I see here.
The desire to have always had the currently approved opinion is bad enough as it is, but the need to have it to comply with political correctness, or face a "liability", is worse.
I don't think you meant anything bad by this but this statement makes it seem like you are overly concerned with being political or extremely worried about literally voicing your own view. It's not exactly like "When they came for X I did not care because was not X" but its sort of in the ballpark.
Sure, it is a charged issue. But if the zeitgeist changes in twenty years to march further toward theocracy then I think I will be voicing opposition against that. :)
How many people here work with Google technologies and yet are quite able to criticize Google for not providing easy tools for end-to-end encryption and/or for taking part in anti-poaching collusion?
I understand why people could get offended about this. But as I understand it most who oppose this have a religious reason to do so. Now religion is as deeply person and important to a person as is the right to marry. So where do we draw the line on what we allow others to think, believe or support?
As a for instance my Aunty is vegan and is offended that I or any one else would ever eat meat. And I know eating meat is much less of an issue, but I support her right to oppose the eating of meat. She has would vote against my ability to eat meat. But my response would not be to attack her as a person but simply vote in the opposite direction.
On the other end I can see why a Jewish person living in Nazi Germany would have attached Hitler and the Nazi party at any chance they got.
There's actually other reasons one could support Prop 8 without necessarily being anti-LGBT. This includes an opposition to all marriage in general, or a desire to keep the traditionalist definition of "marriage" and have the same rights for non-traditional couples under a different moniker, a perceived triviality of the issue (whether rationally justified or not) and so on.
I do not approve of his actions, but there's plenty of other variants besides "Eich is a despicable homophobe."
Of course, outrage porn is very popular in our interconnected society these days. As for me, I'll keep using Mozilla's products and learn to draw a line between technical accomplishments and political views. Mozilla's contributions to FOSS are far too great to brush them off over something like this.
It's kind of hard to reconcile any of those arguments with support of Prop 8.
Prop 8 very specifically changed the law against a very specific group. It wasn't maintaining status quo; it wasn't removing the state from the issue; it was placing certain people at a disadvantage.
Consequently, while there are some possibly reasonable arguments about gay marriage (getting the state out of marriage altogether being the most compelling), supporters for Prop 8 can't hide behind them.
Just because your religion says so doesn't mean I have to follow it. I'm not trying to make you change your religion - you can live the way you want - but that is not the way I want.
The appropriate middle ground is just that. You can be as religious as you want, tell me that I live in sin etc., but you don't get to force me to not be with the person I love. Similarly, I don't get to force legislation to make everyone atheist.
I think you miss the point. I am trying to get a discussion on where we draw the line on how we assert our political beliefs in everyday life.
For instance there has been talk here on the freedom of association. I support that to a degree. But not to the degree where I would want society to allow a shop keeper to only serve straight white males. But I would want a society that allows a church/temple/(name your religious building) to discriminate on not marrying people from outside of that faith.
This article got me thinking why have I drawn these lines. And wanted to open a discussion on how we decide when is it okay to limit someone's freedoms. I think the majority are saying lets try to prevent this guys ability to work for this company. Because he wants to limit who can marry who. But why is one okay and not the other? I'm not trying to take either side I'm just trying to ask why.
I draw the line at if you can make a logical argument, there are many logical arguments for not eating meat. There are no convincing logical arguments for opposing gay marriage that don't involve bringing mystical wizardry into play.
Except you can't assume you're right and use that as the basis of an argument against someone who you thinks you're wrong. You'll get nowhere with that. It's the same thing your opponent does too.
It always bothers me when listening to (or reading) a debate and both sides say that the other side isn't being logical. Well, you can't both be logical and still be in contradiction with each other.
I think people would be much more serene if they stopped idolizing certain programmers, computer scientists and tech people in general as demigods. As influential, intelligent and wise as they may be, they are quite fallible, and their political views are very likely to be a volatile mess, like most other people.
If it's any consolation, there has yet to be a cult tech figure who is a neo-Nazi/white nationalist or anything of the sort. Or am I wrong?
The world would be a much better place if we could learn to separate the artist's work from the artist's personal deeds and opinions. Otherwise you'd probably be unable to enjoy anything made before the 20th century.
It'll stop us from getting consistently outraged at various people over their personal convictions and save us more energy to enjoy their work, which is often unrelated to the former.
Talent is a highly subjective measure. No doubt there are people as equally or more talented than Eich, but he is the creator of JavaScript, which is the fundamental language of the web and everyone's favorite double-clawed hammer to hammer in nails with, whether you like it or not.
The incredibly capable Terry Davis has frequently espoused views shared by white supremacists. He's the guy who wrote Losethos, TempleOS, and occasional screeds against black people and immigrants.
I don't support gay-marriage either ... I've said it before and I'll repeat it again (if necessary). My religious beliefs hold that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I choose to follow my religion because it's something I feel deeply about. Asking me to compromise my religious beliefs or be called homophobic (I'm not), full of hatred (I'm not) or even biased (I'm not) just isn't fair.
I've got friends that live an alternative life-style, and I can discuss this sanely with them. We don't have to agree on everything to be friends and we certainly don't agree on whether their lifestyle can be aligned with my religious beliefs, but we also don't make it the focal point of our relationship.
I've never said I was against the various domestic partnership rules that allow equal insurance, tax breaks and other benefits to committed partners. I'm simply not willing to use the word marriage to describe the relationship.
So when I see all the commotion about a measly $1000 donation to support proposition 8 in CA, I wonder why anyone is actually wasting their time on a protest. I don't think that Eich is filled with hatred ... I suspect he barely thinks about it at all. But why is it okay when the hatred is directed at him? Why are people so consumed by the issue that they give up vast amounts of their time and energy?
I can live without hating ... can you?
P.S. I'll admit that there are probably things and people in the world that are worth hating.
I've never said I was against the various domestic
partnership rules that allow equal insurance, tax breaks
and other benefits to committed partners.
That's where you and Eich differ. By donating to the Prop-8 campaign, he was directly supporting state-sponsored discrimination. It goes past personal beliefs when you take steps to strip others of their rights.
Sorry, can you explain exactly where the bar is set to determine how 'worthwhile' a software company has to be before we turn a blind eye to their having a homophobic CEO?
I am for gay marraige. Eich is against it. These facts don't necessarily make me a homophile or Eich a homophobe. We have differing views on what marraige means.
Why does rarebit pulling their app represent a lack if respect for personal beliefs? Why is it ok for Eich to do what he will but not ok for others to act in response to that? That's bullshit.
Actions have consequences. Actions have consequences.
There's a common wrong argument against this sort of boycott, but its comparably common rebuttal is subtly wrong as well.
common wrong argument: This is a violation of Eich's freedom of speech.
subtly wrong rebuttal: The First Amendment protects you against government infringement of free speech (including campaign donations, since money is "speech"), but it doesn't protect you against the social consequences of that speech.
While true on its surface, the reason this rebuttal is subtly wrong is that it ignores a critical distinction, which is that, as a "protected class", gays are privileged under the law. This means that you are especially vulnerable to being sued for violating their rights. As Mencius Moldbug put it in the context of McCarthyism and the anti-Communist Red Scare [1]:
"[M]ost of what we call 'McCarthyism' was a matter of 'social consequences.' Besides, the social consequences work for one and only one reason: there's an iron fist in the velvet glove. Being sued for disrespecting a privileged class—excuse me, a protected class—is not in any way a social consequence, but rather a political one."
To appreciate the asymmetry, imagine a counterfactual reality in which Eich donated against of Prop. 8 instead of for it. In this context, suppose he made a comment in the workplace about his support for gay marriage. Suppose further that some Mozilla employees, who happened to vigorously oppose gay marriage, sued on the grounds of a "hostile working environment". Such a lawsuit would have no chance of success. In contrast, in the real reality we actually live in, Eich will now have to monitor his workplace speech very carefully—one wrong word about gay marriage could be all it takes to precipitate a lawsuit against him and the Mozilla Foundation. It would be unwise to underestimate the chances of such a suit's success.
In the counterfactual universe, a pro–gay marriage Eich might still face a boycott or protests, but they would be incomparably weaker because non-gays are not a protected class. Whereas in real reality, the "social consequences" of a boycott are supported by the full power of the US Federal Government. For obvious reasons, such boycotts have a habit of succeeding.
Non-gays are absolutely a protected class. Sexual orientation is what's protected, not a particular orientation.
A business that discriminates against straight people is just as liable under the law as a business that discriminates against gay people. (This is not, as I understand it, currently illegal under federal law. Many states outlaw it, though.)
The problem is that you see Prop 8 as symmetrical, but it is not. Prop 8 is an attempt to remove rights from a group of people. Opposing prop 8 is not an attempt to remove rights from other people, but rather to grant them to everyone.
The proper analogy would be a hypothetical Prop 88 which seeks to ban straight marriage while allowing gay marriage. Ignoring the complete impossibility of such a thing ever going anywhere, donating money to support the passage of such a proposition would rightfully attract a great deal of negative attention.
Right—same with race, creed, and gender. That's the theory, at least. How fearful do you expect, say, the Super Bowl–winning Seattle Seahawks are of a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination on the grounds that its defensive squad is biased against non-blacks?
In practice, the treatment of "underrepresented" minorities vs. "overrepresented" groups is almost completely asymmetric.
Prop 8 is an attempt to remove rights from a group of people.
You can't remove a right that doesn't exist. Even if you're generally sympathetic to gay rights (as I am), the idea that the framers of the California state constitution intended to protect the right of two men (or two women) to marry each other is risible.
The proper analogy would be a hypothetical Prop 88 which seeks to ban straight marriage while allowing gay marriage.
You're assuming that gay marriage and straight marriage are equally valid relationships. This may be true, but the whole point of Prop. 8 was an explicit rejection of this premise. By positing a symmetry between gay and straight marriage, you're simply begging the question.
It's not "begging the question", it's simple logic.
If Elsa can marry Joe, but Steve cannot marry Joe, and this is purely because Elsa is a woman and Steve is a man, then you're prohibiting Steve from doing something purely because of his sex. Such discrimination based on a person's sex is wrong.
Really, sexual orientation is a red herring in this debate, but people can't properly break the situation down. Bans on "gay marriage" take rights away from everyone, not just homosexuals; although I may never exercise my right to marry a man, I should still have that right.
What Brendan Eich does with his own money on his own time is none of my concern. His opposition to Google Dart is my concern and I wish he would lighten up about that.
What he did is support the disagreement that what is now considered a "right" by an increasingly liberal society was indeed a "right". What is wrong with this? Liberals and gays need to realize that they are often bigots against religion. Those believing the Bible's teachings have a different set of moral standards. I find it ironic that this man is called immoral by liberals and that gays are dubbed the immoral ones by believers in God.
Can't Liberals see that Believers hold themselves to a different set of standards? It is not often personal (though unfortunately for some religious extremists it is). The only hate that is being displayed here is by the anti-religious groups and individuals.
Think of it like this. A girl is invited to a friend's birthday party. She does not attend because her father forbids her to go and won't driver her there either. She tries to explain it to her friend, but here friend hates her now because can not come. Is this fair to the girl?
Some of you will say that this case is more like the girl paying someone to disrupt the party. Again, if the girl's father was responsible as God is for believer's convictions, then should the girl be hated anyway? I suppose if you think that the girl's father only existed in her own mind (was a phantasy) then you would think this.
Still does not seem fair? Well what if it came out later that the girl planning the party was going to do something harmful to the guests. By disrupting the party, the girl who looked cruel now in hindsight looks like a hero. This knowledge of the devious girl's plan is akin to the belief and knowledge that religious people have in God.
God cannot be proven or dis-proven via science. So how do atheists know they are really correct? how do religious people? At least the religious people have a basis that does not rely on unexplained things. A God and a creation are certainly a more plausible and simple explanation to our existence then any offered by atheists.
So who are the real bigots here? From each side's perspective, it is the other. My hope is that each side will respect (not agree with) the others reasons and not show hatred toward the other. If a gay person donates to a fund pushing gay marriage, don't show hate toward them, if a religious person donates to the opposition, the same applies. This is almost sportsmanship in a way. Play hard against the opposition, but when they fall down (when they are in need of help), show them kindness, help them up and continue the competition.
The only hate that is being displayed here is by the
anti-religious groups and individuals.
Aren't you forgetting the people trying to implement state-sponsored discrimination.
God cannot be proven or dis-proven via science. So how
do atheists know they are really correct? how do
religious people? At least the religious people have
a basis that does not rely on unexplained things. A God
and a creation are certainly a more plausible and simple
explanation to our existence then any offered by atheists.
Insane presuppositions aside. The existence of God has nothing to do with equal rights under state laws. Prop 8 wasn't a referendum on whether or not God exists, it was a vote by a 'tyrannical majority' to strip the rights of the minority.
So who are the real bigots here?
The people who try to deny rights to others.
Play hard against the opposition, but when they fall
down (when they are in need of help), show them kindness,
help them up and continue the competition.
Or just don't actively work to harm other people, that will go much further.
Except it isn't "Liberals vs. Believers" because there are lots of liberals who are christians. And there are christian churches that will marry two people of the same sex. There are lots of people who interpret the bible differently.
So what is happening is certain liberals are bigoted against certain religions that have certain interpretations of their religious texts. Which is a lot different than liberals are bigoted against religion.
More seriously, there's the open question as to whether a career technologist is the right person for the CEO slot, especially since he appears to still be in the trenches when it comes to projects like Rust.
Beyond that, this is a cautionary tale for potential CEOs -- within reason, you can give money to politicians and money to foundations, but once you start giving money to specific political causes you're risking a firestorm, and rightfully so. While MoCo isn't exactly a Chik-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby, this is the sort of the thing that causes PR flacks to either wake up in a cold sweat (if they're employees) or start planning the color of their new Aventador (if on agency contract).