Slashdot Mirror
Brendan Eich Steps Down As Mozilla CEO
New submitter matafagafo (1343219) writes with this news, straight from the Mozilla blog, which comes in the wake of controversy over Brendan Eich's polticial views (in particular, his support for California's Proposition 8, which would have reversed a decision legalizing same-sex marriage within the state). and how they would reflect on the organization : "Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He's made this decision for Mozilla and our community. Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard ..."
I am a lesbian and I still think hounding Eich for standing for Prop. 8 and threatening to boycott a cornerstone of the internet and internet development if he was CEO of the Mozilla foundation is complete and utter intolerant bullshit. I am very disappointed with people doing such things and disappointed he caved to such.
Now, the next time we disagree with anything that a CEO does, then we should issue a boycott of more of their completely unrelated, free software.
So, when do we start boycotting Linus for being one of the biggest jerks in the community?
...Keep your political views well hidden if you plan to head up an organisation that is sensitive as to how it is perceived by a cross-section of society.
Deal with reality - the world as it is - rather than ideality - the world as you would like it to be.
I'm not sure how we are supposed to take this. I guess the Thought Police have won another round. I've never met the guy and don't know much about him but it seems like he was harpooned for personal beliefs (that clearly match up with many other people based on the vote). Are we really this much against differing viewpoints? Against religious freedom?
Wow America. Step back and get a grip.
We can start using JavaScript again...
I suspected this was inevitable as soon as the controversy erupted. All he needed to do was say "sorry, I was wrong, and I've changed my mind". But he didn't, and is weasel-worded blog post shows that he obviously hasn't changed his mind. So good riddance. The community doesn't need, nor want, him around.
I wonder if people would react this way to the opposite point of view, if an LGBT person donated to an anti-prop 8 campaign ... should they be forced to resign?
This is sad... I for one will be uninstalling Mozilla from all of my computers, and begin to argue that all my friends move away from the browser.
Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4.
Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 5.
If he would have just waited a few weeks the whole thing would have just blown over. Even the ten people boycotting Firefox would have forgotten. He must have been under some internal pressure.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Clearly someone doesn't quite get it.
Eich/Mozilla weren't hounded for Eich's views. Eich can hold whatever opinions he wants. Eich crossed the line when he materially supported an effort to use the force of law to make a lot of Mozilla users (and some employees) second class citizens unable to exercise rights that should be afforded to all human beings. Having opinions is great, even if they are controversial, but forcing them on other people is wrong, trying to deny people their rights as human beings because they aren't like you is wrong. Don't expect to be in a leadership position of an organization that prides itself on benefiting all of humanity if you don't think all humans should enjoy the same benefits.
Sorry but this is NOT about freedom of speech... he had the freedom to support prop8, but the people boycotting firefox had the freedom to do so as well. Freedom of speech does not mean you have a right not to be criticized for your opinions.
I feel bad for him, it is only because of his public position that this is an issue. If you dig deep enough, none of us should keep our jobs.
His views wouldn't be an issue if the average person could think critically for themselves.
haha, eich was lynched. I guess gay people are as intolerant as homophobes.
No matter what he believed, this kind of tomfoolery doesn't bode well for public discourse in america
What are they smoking at Mozilla? There was more equality behind Iron Curtain than there will ever be in any western country or organization for that matter. If you don't believe me ask your friends who date East European girls. They will tell you who is pulling the strings and its certainly not the guy. Also, I fail to see how Eich stepping down makes Mozilla a better place (more equality than before he was appointed CEO? WTF logic?). Will that happen suddently in the very instant he leaves the building or just two minutes after that? Suddenly Mozilla will become a better place and unicorns will land on magic carpets in Alaska. Hypocrisy at its best. Well done!
What about freedom of speech?
You can't defend his right to have a bigoted opinion and criticize others for their rejection of it. You're allowed to have whatever opinion you want, but you don't get to control other people's reactions to it.
Will we ever learn? It appears not.
People should be free to engage in politics according to their conviction, without punishment or reward. The ballot is secret for a reason.
Political donations are publicised as a check against a few billionaires distorting the playing field. To see how much money influenced the election. It was not meant to be a tool for personal retribution.
Freedom of political activism doesn't cease to apply when it is about rights. Imagine if this happened in other controversies about rights:
Employer 1: "Oh, you are pro-choice? You want to deny unborn children the right to life. Fired!"
Employer 2: "Oh, you are pro-life? You want to deny women the right to self-determination. Fired!"
Employer 3: "Oh, you support the death penalty? You want to deny felons the right to life. Fired!"
This is wrong. People must never be demoted because of political activism they do privatly, not using the company brand, and not related to the company mission.
(Posting AC because I'm at work and I don't log into sites at work. Unfortunately. I'd rather stand behind this comment...)
We live in a land with the freedom to make certain choices. Eich exercised his freedom to choose which causes he was willing to support and which he was unwilling to support.
We, the public, have the same right to exercise OUR right to choose whom to support and whom to not support. I long ago decided that I am unwilling to support, through action/inaction or financial, those who hold views that I find abhorrent. I will always support Eich's right to hold whatever views he wants but don't for a second think that I am therefor giving up MY right to make MY choices.
I have many gay friends and I will not support anyone who attempts to deprive them of the same rights and freedoms that I, as a straight white male, get to enjoy. That is MY choice.
You choose, obviously, is to be disappointed in me for standing up for the rights and freedoms of my friends.
My choice is to not give a flying fuck that you're disappointed and continue to stand in opposition of those who attempt to rob people of their rights and freedoms solely because of who they choose to love (or the colour of their skin or their gender or their religious beliefs or...).
Choice. He made his. I'm making mine.
Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequences. I will defend his right to choose just as I will defend my right to react.
...small minded people who don't know what the first amendment says posting anonymously...
Freedom of speech does not mean that people have to like you whatever you say. It means people can say and support what they want without being punished by the law. Boycotting a business is neither illegal nor ordered by authority, so if you got people so angry they'll boycott any business which puts you in charge, that's too bad. The universe doesn't owe anybody a CEO job.
He might have salvaged it if he'd actually so much as said a word about the Prop 8 thing. Hell, this was years ago and one donation; it shouldn't be that hard to plausibly claim he regrets it. Instead he claimed to be committed to non-discrimination "within Mozilla", which is completely irrelevant to what he did. This would be like donating to the KKK but promising never to discriminate against an employee on racial grounds. Whoop-do-doo, the Mozilla Corporation is already bound by existing non-discrimination laws. That he didn't actually address this very much hints that he continues to be personally opposed to human rights. That's totally fine, plenty of people are. But he doesn't get to lead an organization that claims to be in favor of human rights, without causing a justifiable stink.
What if he said that he though black people were inferior and used the 'N' word?
Or said that "Christianity is a religion of losers"?
It's funny that no one stuck up for Ted when he said that.
And this isn't religious freedom: this is about using the state's power to force religious values on others. That's what the ban on gay marriage is about: forcing Iron Age Jewish moral values (Biblical) on a modern secular society.
There is absoultely no logical reason to ban gay marriage - none. The reason it is banned is because some folks insist on following ancient morals that were put in place for god knows what reason - maybe to make sure that the tribe keeps producing babies; which is hardly the problem in this World.
Whatever he believes, should we not tolerate that? Why should he be shunned for having a particular viewpoint? Do we want to live in a society where people are persecuted for their beliefs?
Huh, turns out Mozilla realized that a CEO who doesn't treat some of his employees like full human beings isn't good for the company.
So who wants a Boskonian running their company?
Not a gay or lesbian but he's not fit to be the Mozilla CEO because:
- He shows that he does not use power wisely (translates into a tyrant in a leadership role). He is pro taking away rights that have already been granted.
- He is busybody (generally translates into a micromanager in a leadership role). He is meddling in other people's business that in no way affects him.
- He has bad judgment (translates into poor direction-setting in a leadership role). He is on the wrong side of a civil rights issue.
I am very happy with the outcome. If this was an issue from 10+ years ago, or if he were in his 20s, it would be easier to look past it.
The situation is much like the controversy with Chic-Fil-A. Eich certainly has the right to contribute to a political cause, but that will not protect him from others exercising their rights to refuse to associate with him in any way, even to go so far as to refuse to work with a particular piece of software.
To make a comparison, imagine I own a sandwich shop. One day, I participate in a Klan rally. I am simply exercising my right to free speech. This will not protect my business from having the majority of customers finding my views abhorrent, and then refusing to patronize by business. I see no difference with the situation at Mozilla.
The fact is that society is changing and beginning to see denying gays rights as abhorrent views, much as American society changed to find racism abhorrent.
Okay, I'm trying to summarize all of the events and make some sense out of it. In 2008, Eich gives $1,000 for support of Prop 8. I voted against Prop 8, as did 48% of the other Californians who voted that day (remember the measure passed). To my knowledge, he has said nothing otherwise and apparently did not interfere with apparently LGBT friendly policies of the Mozilla Corporation. In 2012, his donation was leaked somehow, and it causes headlines to flare. Two years ago. Late March 2014, the Mozilla board selects him as the CEO (he obviously is qualified for the job based on experience), full well knowing about his donation and the internal opposition. In April 2014, virtual blip on the online dating scene, OkCupid, capitalizes first and makes a glorious stand against the Mozilla browser because of a 6 year old donation. The media puts them on every front page, highlighting their commitment to LGBT rights and providing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free advertising.
So what do I get out of this? The board saw a win-win, if he can weather the storm of the Prop 8 fiasco then they get one of the most technically competent CEOs available, otherwise, they push him out and get a lot of visibility for doing so (and maybe more converts).
OkCupid was smart to capitalize, and Eich, whom I disagree with, gets the hammer.
I think Howard Stern was right, if you're planning on leading a public company, keep your mouth shut and be everybody's best friend.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
I've got absolutely no time for poofter bashers.
But the torches-and-pitchforks brigade really overdid it this time.
Well, Eich did invent Javascript, and despite what that says about his judgement (or lack thereof), I think it's totally unfair to crucify somebody for their personal opinions. Just saying.
Heaven forbid anyone ever believe that being black is a bad thing.
Heaven forbid anyone ever believe that a woman is a bad thing.
Heaven forbid anyone ever believe that speaking French is a bad thing.
Heaven forbid anyone ever believe that interracial marriage is a bad thing.
Shall I continue?
You're free to believe these things, yes, but likewise, everyone else is free to judge and boycott you for it too. Freedom goes both ways.
So, in order to support free speech, we are now destroying the livelihoods of people who support legislation that was passed by a majority of the voters in the state. This is a sad, sad day for the internet. When our kids ask us why the Internet isn't free, we can tell them it is because we were more worried about the feelings of 5% of the population than principles.
I know that intelligence can coexist with bigotry, dogma, and hate, but I still find myself asking how such an intelligent, competant person could be wrapped up in being a bigot.
From the blog announcement:
"Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all." [mozilla.org]
This needs fixing:
"Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, and geographical location. Mozilla supports equality for all who agree with the majority."
And this applies to every single organizational statement regarding inclusion and equality. Some are more equal than others.
The "gay community" has demanded, and set the precedent, that will enable me to fire any employee I discover is gay... Oh, NOT for BEING gay, and not for speaking on "gay issues", no, no ,no they respected his right to be who he was and say what he said, but they insisted his support for prop 8 was an actual action (which is not, in the gayverse, apparently allowed) which crossed the line and made him in-effect fireable. So if I find any employee is gay I just have to detect an ACTION which in some way assists some gay political policy and THEN it'll be just fine if I drop the axe. Check. Got it. Makes sense to me now.
hmmmm
Why do I still suspect that if I fire a gay employee for his actions in support of something I object to I may still find myself in court????
Good ol' progressive politics: "freedom for me, but not for thee". In progressive land, we all have freedom to believe and say what we want, as long as it's only what progressives want us to say and believe. Anything progressives do not like, will be labelled "hateful" and be banned, because progressives really HATE people who disagree with them!
"Freedom" used to include my freedom to dislike things you do, things you say and things you believe in... and your right to dislike things I do, things I say, and things I believe in... those were the days.
Socialism is neither freedom nor liberty and tolerates neither. The PC Nazis' can go fuck themselves... and fuck beta!
Mozilla believes in freedom of speech? That is pure doublespeak. Being forced from your job for a politically incorrect or ill-advised or counter productive political opinion is not supportive of free speech, is not supportive of tolerance.
As long as he treats his employees equally, and a marriage certificate is not necessary to do so with respect to health care and other benefits, and treats his customers equally there should be no issue with his role as CEO.
In the rest of the World (Earth-USA) pro-gay Propaganda should be strictly FORBIDDEN.
So he supported Proposition 8 six years ago. How much insight does that really give us into the scope of his character? How many CEOs have done much, much more despicable things in their personal and professional lives and faced little to no public criticism for it? You could write a novel on all of the rotten things that Steve Jobs did, but instead he gets praised by the media as the computing messiah, because none of his antics were hot-button political issues. The gay rights community is turning into the very thing they despise. Flame me all you want. This was NOT justice.
...even though I have 15 mod points...
Bullshit. Please stop masturbating in public. No one fucking cares how many mod points you have.
Or is it Ploor?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Just as we shouldn't and wouldn't tolerate someone who actively promotes that miscegenation laws are a good thing, we shouldn't tolerate a homophobic bigot like this jerk. Our society has moved beyond this. Don't let the door hit you in the arse, buddy.
The pro prop 8 side was NOT seeking to take ANYTHING from ANYBODY.
First, for {X} to "take something away" from {Y}, {y} would have to have had it in the first place... and gay couples in California had never previously been included in the definition of "marriage". You cannot remove something somebody never had.
Second, gays were NOT seeking equality; they already had that. A male could always marry any female who would have him as long as both were of age and not already married... there was NO legal prohibition against a gay male marrying. They sought something new: the right to a "marriage" to somebody of the same gender. Traditionally, "marriage" was one male and one female (no test for whether the male was gay or the female was lesbian, just 1 male + 1 female). "Gay marriage" is something new (1 male + 1 male or 1 female + 1 female) based of a false understanding of marriage as "marry who I love/lust after" rather than "marry somebody of the opposite sex". Marriage was about stable structures and supports for creation and upbringing of children... independent adults do not really need marriage.
Opponents of prop 8 are clearly just hate-filled perverted bigots who hate traditional families and are attacking decent civilized people.
See how that works? Yeah, ANYBODY can label somebody else as "hate-filled" and a "bigot" ... particularly as a tactic to avoid rational discussion and try to "win" an argument NOT on any merits but just by painting your opponent as "unacceptable". It works both ways.
The people boycotting are also expressing free speech. He is still entitled to say what he wants to say, but when you tout intolerant religion and politics publicly you will alienate the people you wanted to do business with. He will be frowned on by tolerant organizations like Mozilla, he will probably be favored by others, like Westborough Baptist Church.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
A lot of people are assuming that opposition to same sex marriage is strictly based on hate. This is false, and comes from thinking that anybody who disagrees with something I have done or believe must hate me in order to disagree. They may hate me or they may not, but it is not logically to assume that is the reason.
I am fully against same sex marriage, and I do not hate those who think differently. (Hint, one of the employees I manage is gay, and I am trying to help him become a better employee because that is my job). I think they are wrong, but I don't hate them.
I am fully against people having sex outside of marriage, and I do not hate those who think differently. (I know people in this situation, again not hating). I disagree with it.
I am heartened to see some who support same sex marriage stand up for Eich and his right to an opinion.
Some say it is just like racial prejudice, but actually it is not. One is behavior, and one is skin color, they are not the same. I am married and trust me they are not the same.
So the PC Nazi's win again.
Mozilla's response is too timid, Mitchell Baker sounds far too apologetic on the turn of the events. Their accomplishments are not because of their palling up to the popular opinions but because they stood for our basic rights.
This is the probably the first instance where I have been disappointed with them. I understand that maybe they didn't have the stomach to stand up for their CEO but they sound too concerned about looking good in eyes of the liberal crowd with their apologetic tone.
"Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO..."
I wonder what his other choice was. Probably be fired.
Gay people can hold whatever opinions thet want, but they cross the line when they materially support an effort to use the force of law to make any traditional American recognize their perversion. "Having opinions is great, even if they are controversial, but forcing them on other people is wrong, trying to deny people their rights as human beings", in this case to not participate in something morally repugnant, "is wrong". I'm glad to see that you will support the removal from leadership (of any organization) of any person advocating for things like "gay marriage"....
oh, wait... were you only advocating FOR people supporting evil things and AGAINST people who oppose evil things? huh?
The problem here is that the political left is trying to re-define what is morally "right" and morally "wrong" in western civilization and while they've been making great strides due to their influence in the machinery of popular culture, they are OUTRAGED by the mere EXISTENCE of anybody who disagrees with them on their new definitions of "good" and "bad"; they fly into uncontrollable rages at the mere thought of dissention (even though they always demanded tolerance for their views when THEY were the dissenters). The result is pure hypocrisy... claiming to be "high-brow" and "open minded", pretending to be for "free speech" and "free thought" while DEMANDING the heads of anybody who disagrees, and engaging in hateful and bigoted rhetoric against anybody who does not "fall in line" is just so patently dishonest and twisted that it's obvious to even the dumbest observer that all the appeals to "freedom" are just deception attempting to pave the way to an Orwellian nightmare of totalitarianism of the mind.
Please post a list of political, religious, and otherwise controversial views that your employees are allowed to believe in (and not just in the privacy of their own homes but in public, such as donating to a cause); similarly, post a corresponding list of views that will cause an employee to be terminated or to be forced to resign.
Please note that if you fail to do so, you will be considered cowardly as well as intolerant.
Sincerely,
Someone who doesn't put up with bullying
I've been firmly pro marriage equality and firmly against Prop 8 and its supporters forever. That said, I think this whole thing is really a shame. Supporting this law was deplorable, I think it's very much like supporting miscegenation laws last century. It's backwards and just shouldn't be a thing.
In On Liberty, JS Mill said something that's stuck with me since my undergrad Philosophy days:
"Those in whose eyes this reticence on the part of heretics is no evil, should consider in the first place, that in consequence of it there is never any fair and thorough discussion of heretical opinions; and that such of them as could not stand such a discussion, though they may be prevented from spreading, do not disappear."
However, we've won. The tide has turned and mainstream opinion is on our side. Assuming that's undisputed, we can't just browbeat and boycott people who still disagree. We should engage and accept them. Unless he's actually oppressing anyone, Eich deserves our respect and engagement. It's in our best interest if we ever want to leave the kinds of views he's expressed behind us. A "fair and thorough discussion" of the views supporting Prop 8 may seem downright silly to those who don't hold that view, but if we don't have it, we'll keep this nasty view around for a lot longer than if we do.
Further, I think people have been comfortable dismissing Eich and wanting him to leave simply because they don't want to acknowledge that someone who's contributed so much could have views they find so deplorable. Again, without supporting his views at all, I think he and those who oppose him both deserve more respect than they've received.
Free speech is letting him say or donate to whatever cause he wants. People are violating his free speech under the guise of free speech.
For their intolerant, hateful, bullying tactics against an individual who used to hold an opinion with which the execs of okcupid now disagree. Nevermind the fact that 2008 was 6 years ago, when a large majority of the U.S. and even a majority of Californians felt and voted the same way this man did. Nevermind that it was years before even beloved Obama embraced the pro-LGBT agenda. The definition of tolerance has been hijacked to mean "you better agree with my anti-religion, anti-traditional views or I will call you a bigot, hater, whatever else I can think of, and I will do everything I can to bully and destroy you."
This story has been a good opportunity to challenge my own assumptions. Some of the key questions I asked myself:
* Should Mozilla have a CEO who gave $1000 to support prop 8?
* Would it have been sufficient for him to renounce his support of the law?
* Would he also have to announce his support for same sex marriage?
* Would it be different if the campaign were to outlaw interracial couples?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
A screaming mob has burned a good man for expressing his mind. For them "free speech" is OK as long as you agree with them.
May they all burn in hell for trampling on a civilization that has taken thousands of years to develop.
Where's the Conservative movement's boycott of Mozilla for oppressing an employee's exercise of their U.S. 1st Amendment rights, including freedom of political association, freedom of religion, freedom to petition, and freedom of speech (even, or especially, if not "politically correct")... and done on their own private time?
lynched? He is alive. Lynched is what happens to gays (I remember regular hate-killings on the news when I was growing up in Texas). And many of the people objecting were't gay. Your intolerance to facts is showing.
Learn to love Alaska
The issue I think most people have but can't vocalize it is that he went above and beyond just having an opinion that gay marriage is wrong, he went above and beyond the same means that anyone would have and actively contributed to suppressing other people's rights. Granted, $1000 is not much, but not everyone has 1k lying around that they can donate to a cause, so the only things that I believe are beyond reproach would be voicing one's opinion, voting and protesting. All of those things anybody can do, and all that doing those things does - is take your time up - which regardless of income or status, everyone's time has equal worth to themselves.
Anyways, If he had made an apology and donated like $2000 to pro gay rights or something, then I could see him keeping his job. Anyone complaining after that would be the ones actually being prejudice to opposing viewpoints, as opposed to prejudice against injustice and the suppression of rights. In my opinion at least.
It has nothing to do with where you work. The First Amendment only defends one from government punishing your speech. You can still boycott — and be boycotted — by non-governmental enterprises and individuals. Indeed, when the Amendment was written, the percentage of people working for private sector was much higher than today.
I am disgusted with the Illiberals' persecution of the supporters of the Prop 8, but I don't deny their right to do it... I do wish, the actual Liberals were as effective, though... Why, for example, is one getting into all sorts of trouble for opposing — not gay sex — gay marriage, but, for example, glamorizing Che Guevara is deemed perfectly acceptable?
You are free to protest and express your disgust for the glamorization of comrade Che . The Prop 8 comrades (El eich) took a personal issue, moralized and politicized it then demanded that their dislikes be legislated according to their religious/cultural beliefs. Denying a segment of society their alienable rights and pursuit of happiness. His hounding off a job is minute and not comparable to his support for victimization of a minority.
This isn't an issue of freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Eich wasn't fired; he stepped down. To be fair, there was probably a lot of pressure on him to step down, but at the end of the day I think all the higher ups at Mozilla (Eich included) realized that the revelation of Eich's donation to Prop 8 was doing a huge amount of damage to the Mozilla brand. In addition to managerial duties, a big part of being a CEO is being the face of a company. There's a reason why many companies vet potential CEOs the same way political parties vet candidates; if you do something that pisses people off, particularly people in your key demographic, you are hurting your company. A lot of young people use Mozilla products and young people in the United States overwhelmingly support gay marriage. Mozilla didn't want Firefox to become "the browser made by that guy who hates gay people" in the eyes of the public, so they made the call of getting rid of a very new CEO to avoid further public pressure. I would imagine that there's still a job for Eich at Mozilla if he wants it, but probably a lot more behind the scenes.
I wonder what the fallout will be for Mozilla. The definition of marriage varies through out the world. How will Mozilla and Firefox be viewed in parts of the world with a different marriage definition now that Eich was forced to resign? I believe there will be unintended consequences, some negative consequences for Mozilla and Firefox in the developing world.
The last time I checked America was a country of free speech. Well, it is...as long as you don't say something that offends the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender folks. Then you get fired for expressing your opinion.
What did Eich do that was so bad? He contributed $1000 to a campaign opposing gay marriage. It doesn't mean that the guy hates gays. It doesn't mean that he discriminates against anyone. There is no evidence that he has ever discriminated against anyone working at Mozilla, or their business partners, or their competitors for that matter. All he did was take a side in a constitutional amendment vote in the state of California. That is his right as a citizen. It is also his right to donate money towards the cause, if he chooses to do so. Just like people are free to donate money IN FAVOR of Gay marriage, should they choose to do so.
Personally, I could care less whether Eich supports Gay marriage or not. That's not the point. The point is that the man should be free to voice his opinion.
This smacks of exactly the kinds of McCarthyism communist witch hunts that took place back in the 1950's and 60's. At least Marc Andreessen has come out in support of his friend. I'll give him props for that.
Would you think it OK if the figurehead of a technological organization had to resign after boycots from those who objected to a $1000 donation, 5 years ago, to some side of the abortion issue, or the death penalty issue?
By tradition, marriage implies a couple will TRY having children (and assumes they are able to, by virtue of being a male and a female), but out of politeness nobody invades their personal space to find out "why it did not happen". Incidentally, by tradition in Western law any spouse in any marriage could seek a divorce if their partner failed to consummate the marriage.... so what is the new definition of "consummation" for a so-called "gay marriage"????
Independent adults do not need marriage any more than gays need it, or people who love their horses, or corpses, or fence posts, need it... Marriage was always primarily about creating the next generation of humans and providing them with stability in their childhood years. The fact that couples stayed together after the kids "left the nest" was not a requirement and often tended to happen as a side-effect of having been together so long and having the family in common. The marital bond, enforced by ceremony and tradition and assisted by the symbol of a judge and/or preist is primarily to provide the extra drive to keep a couple together long enough for their kids to grow up (many people need that extra push to "do the right thing" in the tough times, just as some people need guard rails along the road to keep from going into the ditch when driving conditions are bad). If you think that you need a priest or a judge to sanction your one-on-one comitment to another adult (where no children are at risk of being collateral damage) then your relationship cannot be that strong.
If his ability to make a living is taken away, does he really have freedom of speech? Are you really free to have an opinion if your family is attacked for you speaking? Would it be reasonable for Walmart to get someone fired for speaking? Then why is it reasonable for any other group?
Eich was not just some employee of Mozilla - he was the CEO! You know, the guy who gets to decide what political causes that the "corporate person" of Mozilla will support, where is political contribution money would go, what it lobbyists say in Washington, or elsewhere. Would Mozilla, under Eich, continue to contribute to opponents of gay rights as it has in the past (it contributed to Tom McClintock's House campaign in 2010).
The politics of the CEO is a matter of considerable relevance in this day and age of virtually unlimited corporate influence.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Maybe he can get a job in Uganda or some other African country that executes gay people. Good luck with that.
That's an extreme insult to everyone who was actually lynched. I suppose that's why you posted your derp as an AC.
There's nothing wrong with not tolerating bigotry. If this clown was kicked out simply for being Christian, maybe because many employees understand that religion is idiotic, I'd be on his side, even though he's supposedly an adult and still believes the supernatural exists outside of fiction and the imagination.
He crossed a line when he financed bigotry. It's the same line Orson Scott Card crossed that lost him the support of everyone who opposes bigotry. No one came down on them for being religious flakes. The problem was that they promote inequality.
This was very, very, very childish. He's entitled to his opinion, only as long as he agrees with homosexual deviants or whatever group thinks they are offended by his personal beliefs or actions. That is utter rubbish. This is just another case of nut cases driving their opinions as the only acceptable way to believe. It is very sad to see the world descend to this level.
Isn't it amazing how much deviant behavior must now be accepted as "normal" and "accepted" and if not, those who don't accept deviant behavior as normal must be punished? Very, very, very sad. I hear "someone" laughing... Luke 17:26-30.
I've been a Mozilla Corporation employee for quite a few years now. I used to be proud of that.
While I am personally pretty traditional in most of my political and social views (as well as my sexuality), I was well aware that my Mozilla colleagues cover a wide spectrum; this has never been an issue either at work or in our extra-curricular interactions. The Mozilla community was welcoming to all who shared the vision for a free and open Web, and we worked together for that common goal.
Today, I am ashamed to be part of Mozilla.
There's something scarily Orwellian about a community that prides itself on "a wide diversity of views" and a "culture of openness" - but only provided those views align with those of a particularly vocal sub-group. Woe betide the community member who dares to differ.
Perhaps I don't belong here any more. Until now, I've ignored the periodic messages from tech recruiters at other companies, but if Mozilla has become a company - a movement - that is at the beck and call of the militant LGBT lobby, I am increasingly uncomfortable being part of it.
to persecute any sick, twisted, evil, sexually-deviant, mentally-challenged, morally-vacuous pervert....
Bet you don't like THAT right?
Now you know how you sound when you rage against people you disagree with... try a little civility next time, or just keep your bigoty and hatred to yourself.
Though I think it was generous of him to step down. And I'd do the same.
But I agree with you that is not what we call a sane democratic environment.
Next time, when a gay or lesbian is elected for CEO, straight people will do what? Because this is not only about prejudice or intolerance.
No.
There was a movement to reject him as a CEO, because people simply thought he could not act without bias.
I cannot vow for him, since I don't know him -- and maybe that is the real problem. As a mere user -- content, btw, many thanks Mozilla -- I would refrain from protesting... even more so because I should give him the benefit of doubt.
This episode should make Mozilla think about a more transparent choice next time and should give people an opportunity to reflect on how much personal preferences might influence (or not) a leader.
If we're going to reject dudes based on their preferences, we may end up without any acceptable candidate... because there's always someone who dislike something in everyone.
Gay sickness must be eradicated. For the future of the human race. Gays have NO PLACE in it.
In the comments above I've read some of the most interesting discussions I've seen in a while around here. This is the stuff I come to /. for. Thank you all!
Error 001
Security Scan and Virus Detection do not work with your operating system.
Business leaders and politicians go through this all the time -- The way to get around this one is to publicly *apologize*, and release a statement like, "It was one time, almost a decade ago, I was confused and I'm sorry, my views have evolved". Maybe a $1,000 donation to a gay-rights organization.
But Eich didn't do that. He never explained the donation that I could see. Which I would interpret as saying that he STILL sticks to his opinion on the issue, and would rather resign from his leadership than have to say that he was wrong about it. So don't let the door hit you on the ass leaving.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Are all of them inelligable for any important positions now? Doesn't that cut the talent pool rather too much?
The courts rightly overruled these millions of ignorant/prejudiced/religious voters. Time to move on. Virtually lynching someone for having agreed with the majority on something wrong which has been righted doesn't help anyone.
This space intentionally left blank
Amazing!
http://de.mon.st/RyEq2/
So he was a douch not only when it came to technology....
Wait until that someone votes against something that is part of your very nature.
A lot of chest beating going on here, a lot of flexing of consumer muscles, and talk of the righteous boycotting of bigots. From the outside however, it just looks like a pitchfork wielding mob, using coercion to bend a third party to their will.
People don't like seeing coercion, especially by groups who have no accountability to anyone, and I believe that the result of these protests will be a decrease in public's sympathy for equality of rights for gay people.
Nice try, but a job isn't considered a basic right.
Why can't people get it through their thick heads. Hey I know a great business model!
1. start a business
2. make a stance on a 50/50 topic like marriage or abortion that has absolutely nothing to do with your company in any way
3. go bankrupt
To sum:
What Eich did years ago was a dumb business move.
What Eich did years ago was of minimal political significance in either the long or short term.
What Eich did is nigh impossible to interpret as tolerant.
What Eich might arguably be interpreted as following the golden rule.
What Eich did was of debatable morality.
What OkCupid did was a smart business move.
What OkCupid did was a meaningless political move (as Eich being CEO has no impact on the issue).
What OkCupid did was in support of tolerance, was not tolerant, but was not necessarily hypocritical.
What OkCupid did clearly did not follow the golden rule, as they would not want Mozilla encouraging users of Firefox to boycott their dating site for the political past of their CEO.
What OkCupid did was of debatable morality.
So, whether OkCupid was more immoral here than Eich is utterly subjective. I irrationally distrust businesses that win politically, so i lean toward Eich on this one.
Regardless, i like the golden rule a hellufa lot more than this "tolerance" bullshit. Tolerance is one of the most insipid and flawed moral foundations humanity has ever concocted. Tolerance can only be consistently practiced, but never promoted, lest you prove hypocritical. That is, unless, you are willing to embrace inconsistent tolerance (via i'm only intolerant of intolerance or whatever), but that has the logical effect of making it fundamentally subjective and weakened in presentation. You want a sound moral foundation? Ditch the idea of tolerance, pick something solid and consistent like "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" or "love your neighbor as yourself". Even ungenerous foundations like "every man for himself" or "survival of the fittest" are at least logically consistent, though i personally find them distasteful and unlikely to be as effective in achieving personal (or societal) goals in the long-term.
Civilization is formed when a few break away from the rest and decide to do things differently.
Separated, they set up their own rules, and they succeed.
Then everyone else comes in and wishes to partake of the wealth. But these are people who can't discipline themselves to play by the new rules, so they start trying to destroy the rules.
Eventually they figure out that through a hybrid of altruism and individualism they can convince people that the only good/right thing to do is to wreck the rules.
The civilization collapses, and is swallowed up by the failures around it, forgotten to history.
***
This is what is happening with political correctness in the West today.
A small group of people who have no skills other than socializing are trying to convince us to stop having standards and values as a civilization.
In the place of our values, they want "ideology," which basically means that hybrid of individualism and altruism.
The result will be breakdown to third-world levels of disorder, corruption, hygiene and dysfunction.
RIP USA
Futurist Traditionalism
That's the highlight! That's he's 1) in favor of expanding government's role and 2) doing it in a way to negatively impact a small (but not tiny) group's rights and 3) a spineless pussy is just .. *muah* .. perfectissimo! The three traits together can only mean one thing. You'll see all three character defects throughout the population, but there's one particular well-known group in America who rallies around that specific trifecta (*).
Don't be disappointed when a Republican get outed. Be amused or relieved (depending on how much power they had before sniffed out, so in this case it should be just amusement).
(*) There is a fourth flaw (and maybe others) you'll find in this group, but these three alone are enough to identify one. You can swap the "spineless pussy" part with the fourth flaw (which is really an expression of the same underlying mental problem) and get the same diagnostic quality. With this, I can now make a prediction about Eich and tell you something I know about this total stranger: he has sincere belief in the paranormal. Whether he uses the words "crystal power" or "God" or whatever, I guarantee you that this guy's entire world view is completely based on the supernatural and an utter rejection of all observation and inference. And you don't want such a person as CEO of Mozilla! He'll start pushing for "prayer protocol" or something. Really, we all came out ahead by him stepping down. I promise; you'll understand more when you read next year's news story about him funding a creationist museum or when he kills himself over a "bad" comet or some other silliness. I fucking swear he's a Republican. There's no way he isn't.
It is a violation of federal civil rights laws to contact someone's employer over their political activities.
We have tens of thousands of felons to prosecute.
I've got to get to work.
Does anyone have a list of the complainants who contacted Mozilla Corp?
Donation information is public. So are LinkedIN profiles. Not hard to put the two together and start a campaign against any company that employs someone who donated against gay marriage. Start with relatively senior people in other companies to get the ball rolling.
I can only imagine the out-cry if someone from the LGBT community had been chosen as CEO and people complained about it enough to get them to resign. But I doubt that would happen. Would it be ok for the supporters of Prop 8 to drive out an opponent of the bill?
If a CEO is hurting the face of the company he should resign but the only reason that happened in this case is because the opponents of Prop 8 made it untenable. I find it odd the opposition people were so threatened by his views with little other evidence.
I don't agree with the man but we are talking about a technology company, not a legislative body. I despise my CEO but I would never fight for his resignation unless he was killing the company.
-----
The people at Mozilla are hypocrites. For years they've been working for this guy. He was a fucking co-founder of Mozilla, then Lead Technologist, then CTO! He has always been one of their primary leaders. Where was the outcry all this time? Why did these people even join the Mozilla that he co-founded? Apparently it's fine to have an anti-gay boss as long as the world doesn't see him. All they care about is their own image.
Marriage itself is designed to make non-married people second class citizens. Wanting to get married, getting married or supporting the concept of marriage is working to actively take away rights from people who do not wish to live their life married. Just look at how many laws and regulations are designed to favour married couples. It's ridiculous.
...I mean, mainstream Islam is seriously anti-gay.
So all these folks hounding this guy for his (relatively trivial) political support for a cause 6 years ago must certainly then be ardent and vocal in their anti-muslim rhetoric?
Because hounding someone out because of their 'intolerant' views is one thing.
Picking on someone because you know they're not going to fight back just makes you a pussy.
-Styopa
Isn't it time we started standing up to all the haters out there? They are growing in number and in power simply because we let them. Once again "Evil wins because good people do nothing".
The fact that he chose to step down should be the biggest indicator to the employees that they should persuade him to stay.
One call from Google and this guy's gone.
My other first post is car post.
Google basically was/is the sole supporter of Mozilla anyway.
My other first post is car post.
n/t
There has been much news over the last week about Mozilla . .
See http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/04/03/3422750/mozilla-ceo-steps-down-after-backlash/
Here is my take.
Prop 8. was passed after an extremely deceitful campaign. The "Yes on 8" TV ads were blatant lies, and just horrible. Even some of my low-information, non-voting, gay friends who say them thought they should vote for prop 8 after seeing them.
Prop 8 was unlike all other state constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, because it revoked rights that were already legally recognized.
I was deprived of the rights to marry my partner in California for many years, as many other LGBT couples were. Brendan Eich contributed $1000 towards that campaign. Unlike the 52% of the California electorate who voted for Prop 8 in 2008, this contribution was not the mere expression of an opinion, but something he actively did to influence the result of the referendum that stripped me and others of rights. While the Supreme Court declared in "Citizens United" that money is speech, I don't accept that.
I cannot simply ignore that he made that this contribution. Neither do I think the rest of the world can. I think some backlash against Brendan Eich is entirely warranted.
Whether backlash against him should translate to a Firefox boycott is much more debatable. For better or worse, a CEO represents the corporation, and his political opinions cannot be merely considered private matters. I believe CEOs should be held to a higher standard than lower-level, non-management positions. In this particular case, Brendan Eich was already in a high-level position, as a co-founder of Mozilla, and previously CTO. He was not recently hired, but merely internally promoted to CEO. His "Yes on prop 8 "donation was uncovered years ago, and did not make headlines as big then as now. The Mozilla board probably underestimated how big of an issue this would become after his promotion.
There is no evidence that he has taken discriminatory actions against Mozilla LGBT employees in the past. He has promised that he would not do so either as CEO in the future.
However, he has never publicly discussed his reasons for funding Prop 8 in the past, and there is no evidence that he has changed his mind on the subject. If he did, I believe he would have told the world already, and ended the controversy already.
In my mind, it is difficult to reconcile having funded Prop 8 and not being an anti-gay bigot. While many were deceived by their churches and very strongly encouraged to fund Prop 8, we don't know if that was the case here. I believe he would have said so as well if this was the case. That leaves with him having been and still being an anti-gay bigot as the sole explanation for the funding Prop 8. He is certainly entitled to his bigoted beliefs. But free speech under the First amendment only means it is free of repercussions from the government, not from individual citizens. A boycott certainly falls under free speech as well. Several Mozilla employees have called for him to step down from his CEO role last week.
I'm a long-time contributor to the Mozilla project, including 9 years working on the NSS security library - but never as a Mozilla employee. I certainly don't want to see the Mozilla project disappear into oblivion. I am glad the controversy ended, before the damage to Mozilla and Firefox became irreparable. Having Brendan step down from the CEO role was the best outcome.
Of course, Brendan's $1000 contribution towards Prop 8 was relatively small, considering the $40 million+ spent on each side. I incidentally also donated $1000 to "No on Prop 8" - the same amount he gave to "Yes on 8". But I'm proud of having done so. .
Other CEOs have contributed to anti-gay causes, even in tech . When AOL acquired Netscape, Steve Case donated millions to anti-gay organizations, all the while paying Netscape/AOL employees to contribute to the Mozilla project
And obviously, companies like Chik-Fil-A, Barilla, Wal-Mart, Exxon, and their
-- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
If he opposed polygamist marriage, would that be OK?
Marriage is a social institution and as such, defined by society. Marriage should be debated (in a healthy manner) by society and defined in a democratic manner. Comparing opposition of marriage to racism, sexism, etc., is ridiculous.
Intolerance in the name of tolerance.
I am appalled that it came to this!
I have contributed a great deal of code, time, and effort, as well as cash to supporting Mozilla in the past. I must say, I am reluctant to do so going forward, as the organization seems unwilling to stand behind someone that (for all I know) could have been me for what amounts to a difference of opinion.
I completely fail to see how having an unpopular opinion disqualifies one from the leadership ranks.
Is open source so PC now, that nobody that contributes to it is allowed to have an unpopular opinion?
When do the PC police show up to check my code check-ins to make sure I've complied with the "free speech" guidelines?
Doublethink has arrived in full effect.
I want no part of it.
Fork Mozilla--It's jumped the shark.
This is sort of like saying that half of the people in California aren't qualified to hold any position of authority, because they don't believe the "right way".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Guess it sucks that we live in a world where there are consequences for your actions huh?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
that's your choice. Many choose to hold him responsible for his actions. Turns out lots of people don't like others that stand up to promote division and bigotry. Crazy huh? Consequences suck don't they? The freedom of speech never guaranteed anyone that there would be no consequences for their actions or words. Anyone that thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves about what freedom of speech is.
thinking is hard. Facts based completely on uninformed opinion are much easier to noodle, and happily, always match what you want to believe.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Has anyone else noticed OkCupids hypocrisy in all of this?
They want people to stop using Mozilla because of Eich, yet they have no problem with using Javascript language on their own website.
Come on OkCupid, if you're going to take the moral high ground, at least lead by example.
I'm not going to acknowledge that.
If someone is on record as not only saying, but actively paying to support making sure a group of people enjoy fewer civil liberties than another, and that person's *job* is managing people, some of whom are in that group?
In that case, I don't think it's bigoted to question whether they are capable of perfoming that job well.
That's not bigotry. That's common sense.
And to heck with 2008, while we're at it. If his suport for treating people equally had changed in the past six years, he had more than enough opportunities, including the CNET interview less than 72 hours ago, to not directly avoid answering that question.
I'm a nature photographer.
Finally society is evolving. It's no longer acceptable to deny freedoms just because it "doesn't looks right" to you. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person, but don't be an asshole about it and let other people do it if they want to.
I think in a few years public nudity too will be legal anywhere and people will be like "Why was it prohibited? That's stupid, we're all human beings and there's no point in denying how we look like".
One kills your wife, the other locks up your gay son...
If he was CEO of Coca-Cola, nobody would've really cared that much about his views on same-sex marriage. But in the tech industry, where there is a disproportionate number of gay, lesbian and transgender workers, saying to them, "I don't think you should be able to marry your partner" is not a great career move.
Yes, when he was CTO people cared less -- but CTO is not CEO, and CTOs are expected to be assholes. When he shifted from second to first place and became the face of the company, his past views then became a serious and unacceptable issue.
So it was only a matter of time before he would be forced out. And yes, there will still be all kinds of fallout, since he put himself under scrutiny. The tech community is a bit strange that way, but it is how it is.
Here in the real world, communism just means means that the state controls your life
You guys have no idea what the communist beast can become unless you were born into one.
Communism in essence means that the state has the ultimate right to decide who to live, who to die, without having to provide any explanation, period.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
That said, Democratic Socialism has been shown to work
Are you sure you know what you are talking about ?
"Democratic Socialism" is an oxymoron, something that nature forbids, something so existentially awkward it won't be able to survive by itself.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Shame on Mozilla for caving in to the extremists activists.
John
Those that believe in God have the right to employment just like those who live a gay lifestyle. So I suppose all 50% of Californians who voted for Prop 8 are not worthy to work? Very sad.
"which would have"? It DID!
Is this a slashdot article from a parallel universe where Prop 8 didn't pass?
People shit all over Facebook and talk about how they got zucked, mark is destroying oculus, etc. and in the same breath will say how the CEO doesn't represent the company and how a CEO's personal beliefs should be separate from the company. The cognitive dissonance is laughable.
for democracy
The only way this statement would make the least bit of rational sense is as an apology for capitulating to the mob who called for Eich's head.
But sadly, that isn't how this statement was intended.
I'm genuinely disgusted that the Mozilla Foundation would behave this way. How can I trust a group to produce valid products when they have no integrity?
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
PS. Don't let the door hit you on your pompous asses as you leave.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Large corporations should be held to a strict standard in terms of non-discrimination. But large corporations are in the minority. More than 2/3 of all Americans who work work for businesses with four or fewer employees. About 3/4 work for businesses with fewer than 500 employees. Many of those small and medium sized businesses are legally corporations, but the freedom of association of their owners should be protected. There is no reason in the world to force owners of small corporations to work with employees they don't like or get along with, for whatever reason.
We can still have a debate about whether the behavior of customers is reasonable.
Choosing to buy organic, choosing to buy American, and "fair trade" are also bullshit.
I know the overwhelming majority of posts here seem to be about this being a sad day for freedom of speech. But nobody has taken away Mr Eichs right to speak.
A large group of users (and donors) have, however, made it clear that they may want to excercise their right to use and donate to whatever they want, and Mr Eichs campaigning and donating to remove people's rights may impact on that decision.
Given that Mr Eich was the CEO and not some low-level employee, it is much harder to separate his personal beliefs from that of the organisation. Furthermore, a lot of donors may be uncomfortable with the idea that their donations may well go towards funding campaigns for anti-Gay legislation. Yes, that is always a possibility as employees of an organisation are allowed to do what they want with their salary, but nobody would be as well-enumerated and as public as Mr Eich.
People can oppose progressive legislation for many reasons. As a gay man, I actually don't want or care about gay marriage, and couldn't care less about Prop 8. People's outrage also seems highly selective. Angela Merkel opposes gay marriage, and many US politicians, including Obama himself, were fuzzy about it, and their opinions only "evolved" in response to opinion polls.
Mostly, the people who make Prop 8 a rallying cry are people with a political agenda or political opportunists, not people who actually have my best interest at heart or give a f*ck about gay marriage. You know, people like you.
Actually, he did get fired for a $1000 Obama bumper sticker.
At the time he made the donation, Barack Obama was agreeing with him. Obama's position on gay marriage didn't *evolve* until much later, after Biden's comments backed him into a corner.
Posting as an AC because I'm not fucking stupid.
Some right-wing Christian fanatics called, they want their tactics back.
Because Che really loathed gays and loved to execute them personally. This allows the sensitive types to express all sorts of political correctness while glorifying one of the greatest mass murderers of gays to ever live.
Of course, they might also be stupid. I'm forced to admit the second is a possibility after asking a clueless gay guy at an LGBT meeting about his Che shirt.
Let's see how they feel when their browser marketshare tanks.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Gay rights advocates have the right to criticise Mozilla, but are they right in boycotting Mozilla until Eich leaves the company? Are social conservatives right to demand the gay marriage advocate head of some other organisation be fired because they believe their tax payments shouldn't be used to provide the benefits to married gay couples?
Go figure.
Everywhere. In every human society.
They did it within the institution, i.e., they married people of opposite sex.
And those couples had children. Possibly even children whom you know and regard as friends, coworkers, confidantes, leaders. SSM advocates, do you really wish that those people had never been born??
Every gay/lesbian, in every state in the union, has the same right to marry that I have to marry Jennifer Lawrence, and under the same conditions. Opposing SSM is not “opposing rights”, but opposition to a change in the institution.
And it’s a change that, unlike the oft-cited civil rights and women’s rights movements, has no precedent in human history. Homosexuality has always been around, but never has any known society taken this step. (The ancient Greeks and Native Americans had institutions for same-sex relations, but they were regarded as being quite different from marriages.) Proponents of SSM need to answer not only for why this is a good idea for us now, but why no known previous society has taken this step. This is not like using cell phones or something that could only have developed given the technology; every society *could* have adopted this change, but none has. Why? And what is different about our situation today that prompts this?
He could easily have responded by saying that he's changed his mind about gay marriages and his previous contribution to the fund. ... :)
He would have got a lot of kudos for that move, and retained his position as CEO.
But he didn't. We are left to assume that he still believes gay marriages should be illegal.
He is the public lead of a large corporation, and the brand name is tarnished by his implicitly CONTINUED desire to deny rights that he personally enjoys to others, INCLUDING many of his employees. He decided to pay the consequences of his beliefs.
In his position, although I disagree with his opinion, I openly applaud the man for standing behind his beliefs.
To quit your job over such a matter is a mark of courage and conviction. Somewhat obstinate and perhaps short-sighted, but courageous. As I said, I disagree with his cause.
But I also honour my enemy on the battlefield for his resolve.
Eich has taken the hard road, but it was his choice.
Isn't it funny, how I can respect a man and yet still disagree with him?
All of the screaming crowds here can't seem to understand that there's good and bad in all of us, and the perceived good and bad are most often very subjective, rather temporary in nature, and often hypocritical.
Another day on planet earth with the uneducated mob
Yes it is.
You reap what you sow. That guy meddled with private issues with prop 8 and decided that he did not want others to get benefits they should be awarded in a society which gives equal coverage by law. And now he got beaten the same way by having his private stuff smeared on his face. How does this shit sandwich taste like, mr bigot CEO ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Like when we put the majority of Japanese-Americans (even second or third generation!) in concen^H^H^H^H^H^H'internment' camps during WW2, thus allowing white folks and moneyed interests to take over their businesses and belongings while they were away?
And yes 40 years later they did recieve some 'token' financial restitution, but much like the black man in your example: He'd still have to wait until public opinion turned against them, something that might take decades and a lot of other Black storeowners suffering similiar losses to have a chance of succeeding in court.
But unlike the internment camps in the above example the storeowners would likely recieve nothing, since it was social pressure not legal intervention which deprived them of their rights.
Contrary to beliefs of most of the American populace the laws DO NOT work the way you think, and justice is often not right, regardless of if it's justice of the court, or justice of public opinion/action.
The only true tool you have for societal change is concerted efforts to shape future society through your own attempts at peer pressure. If enough people form behind an ideology it will change society for the better or worse. Just look at Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the Nazi's, the Communist revolution, the KKK, the Million Man March, the United Nations, etc. Not every act of peer pressure is a positive act, but the ability to shape society through such means is how we've slowly advanced towards a potentially more open society. As history has shown however, we can just as rapidly return to more barbaric states because opinions are fickle and many people are short-sighted.
You *DO* realize that he was acting over the Banana republic actions America had been taking in the Carribean and other Central American countries from the 1870s on, right?
At the time the Communist Revolution took place in Cuba, the majority of businesses there were run by American businessmen as getaway resorts for vacationing Americans.
There is no evidence that Eich did or would use his position as CEO to further his personal views on this issue. Yet, he was forced to give up his job. Should he be allowed any job? Should he also be forced to move from his home by neighborhood protests?
There are many states for which laws do not exist to protect gays and LGBT from employment and housing discrimination. Acts such as this weaken such efforts because it goes against the argument that people have a right to work if they're qualified and a right live where they want as long they obey the law. Score this as Revenge 1, Tolerance 0.
Should minimum wagers be complaining because their right to fund lobbying for their ideals is under attack by the rich?
Brend Eich didn't just fund in support of Prop 8. He funded 10k+ dollars towards it, resulting in him having to report his place of employment in order to provide public knowledge of if he was just shilling for his company.
The average american does not have the financial means to lobby that hard. Brendan Eich is one of the privileged few who does.
I'm also pretty sure that stepping down as CEO will not significantly affect his financial situation, given that he'll either return to his previous role at Mozilla or perhaps get a job somewhere more accepting of his views. Maybe Goldman-Sachs, or Oracle. :)
In the meantime however if he's half the employee/businessman his salary makes him out to be, he should have no trouble floating on his savings until his next job comes along. Can the same be said of other employees at Mozilla or elsewhere?
Agree with it or not, where are all the weasely slashdotters that said boycotts will achieve nothing?
Just look at the mess Obama has caused. And the mess the Neo-Republicans have caused in retaliation.
His forced resignation as CEO is a real shame. It is similar to he being forced to resign for supporting gays, but worse, as this is is reverse discrimination of a member of the majority by a very aggresive minority.
Forcing someone out of job for their political / personal views is a bad move no matter the affiliation. The only criterias should have been technical and managerial skills, which he had a lot. The board proved cowardice. Mozilla will pay their mishandling of the online lynching by stagnation or decline, as they will adopt a CEO with better social skills, and less technical skill.
Gay marriage is very much a political issue, because it has no clear "truth", as opposed to sexual liberty. It is generally accepted that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of the bedroom is nobody's business but their own. However marriage is a public institution, strictly correlated with making and raising kids for most of human history. It has little to no sense besides it.
And btw, anybody who watches politics today knows that many people have absolutely NO shame to twist the facts, the truths and throw tantrums for their political ends. Why should we pay the shameless mob any attention?
Any gay person who continues to use javascript is a total hypocrite now.
Have fun using the internet now, assholes.
The backers and financiers of Prop 8 were not even Californians, FFS. They were citizens of Utah; specifically, members of the Mormon church, meddling in the affairs of another state.
Should we all disable JavaScript?
Everyone has seen what this topic has done to people. Flame wars, calling people reprehensible when they are obviously not bad human beings. Everyone hating someone else for their views and life choices. I honestly think most people have a religious problem mixing with a societal one. Once again, 'Marriage' should be a religious ceremony, and Unions should be legal rights. And legally everyone is held to the same standard. We've backed ourselves into this corner by saying that people should be married (see tax law, hospital rules) so we can't just get rid of it. But since laws can change a lot easier than the church, why don't we just change the wording? You don't force people to change their views, you don't force religion to change, and then you can honestly see who the people are who really do just want to deny freedom of choice to human beings.
Too bad Mozilla's products are used internationally and in the rest of the world, the majority have their heads straight. I just pray that they take a huge hit. Only the USA has made this utterly disgusting perversion acceptable in the minds of their people like a sore thumb. Russia banned spreading this perversion to children even the people of France (a surprise) are against such perversion.
Even those who appose it are forced to accept it in some form or get ostracized. There already has been one example in history of what happened.. now it is called the dead sea, the lowest point on earth.. which should serve as a learning example.
Welcome in the 2014 - the Freedom of Speech is dead.
I use Mozilla since its first days, when Phoenix (later Firefox) was only usable browser on Linux.
I was always trying to support it, now it's just another evil company, just like Microsoft of Apple.
There are no basic human rights being challenged here. Marriage is not a basic human right. Marriage is a completely artificial human construct.
If we want to talk about rights or priveleges granted on marital status, that is a completely different question. Frankly, that is a discussion worth having. But this current discussion is a poor proxy for the real issue.
Eich did not advocate against any basic human right. He did not claim that gay people should not be allowed to vote, or work, or shop, or breathe. He didn't say that people should not be gay, or that gay people should not be able to live together. He simply donated to a campaign that wants to define marriage a specific way.
What if the question was, "Will the state recognize a marriage between five individuals?" What if the question was, "Can I marry my cat?"
Are those basic human rights? I submit that marriage is not a basic human right.
Not being forced into a marriage is a more basic human right. Unless of course by "marriage" you mean "attend school together."
As it stands now, we're not not sure what "marriage" means.
In protest to the intolerant behavior of Mozilla and some of its employees who hounded their CEO out of his position, I have uninstalled Mozilla products from my computers. As the "it guy" for my family, I am encouraging all my family and friends to do likewise. As the owner of a software company, I will direct our products to encourage our customers to use . I am against intolerance of a person's honest opinion. We, as a society, haven't learned to respect the sincere opinion of people when we disagree with that opinion. We will suffer the consequences of that behavior just as we suffered the consequences of that behavior in the past.
Well, I'm looking for another browser. If you're unwilling to tolerate my views, I'm unwilling to tolerate yours. Its as simple as that.
Try not using javascript too, while you are at it, because ya know, it was created by someone with different political views.
This is just witch-hunt, and as usual, the people who shout the loudest don't have the integrity nor the understanding why they think something is true.
I don't know anything about Brendan, but if supporting Prop 8 is the only thing he did, I think people are overreacting. If on the other hand,
he is intolerant of gays, we have laws addressing that, and someone should bring them up to the court and deal with it like adults do.
You're fighting very hard to defend your bigotry, and I can respect that. You've clearly put a lot of effort into it, and you do a very good job at pushing false equivalencies, extreme hyperbole, historical erasure, and so on. Do I really need to bring up how many historical societies practiced slavery, human sacrifice, or treating women as property, and how we acknowledge all of those things are horrible today?
It's really very simple: gay people fall in love and wants to live together while being afforded the same legal privileges and protections that straight people have. There is no argument against allowing that which doesn't boil down to either "my religion says so" or "but that's the way we've always done it."
In fifty years, people will be looking at you the same way that we look at opponents of interracial marriage today. You should start getting ready for it.
world are we living if a ceo is forced to step down because he, privately, donated money to a (charity?) institution ??? If he was judged by his views, he would have even the correct views...we bomb the african people in the Mediterranean Sea seeking refuge in Europe, but we get crazy about someone having an opinion with respect to gays.
Yes, thank you for your contribution, Mr. Eich. Best of luck in your future endeavors.
> burned
Mr. Eich has not been set on fire for his views. Try again.
Solid logical fallacies guy, specifically its; a Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: Starting a hypothesis that is not true and then draw any supportable conclusions from it. And also Hasty Generalization: A generalization made on a false assumption based on what the person sees or has experienced from one person or group.
Eich is obviously not a Nazi and he is not imposing anything on anyone he is following the democratic process which allows a person to vote and support the things he so chooses. The issue is that since his political views were put out in the open for the public. I guarantee each and every single person has worked for someone that made the uncomfortable for one thing or another.
Should people who eat meat be fired from their positions if they have vegans working under them? Or should someone who enjoys his porn be fired because his employees think it is gross and offensive? Of course not, what men and women do in their homes is of no one else's accord! It is the right of employees and companies to safeguard their employees by encouraging not consuming meat in front of the vegan, or talking about porn in front of those who are repulsed by it. Likewise, unless Eich was storming about Mozilla terrorizing people who live the same-sex lifestyle then OF COURSE he should be removed. But you know something? He was not doing that, he simply supported a political bill.
Finally, my question is this for any and all. When did tolerance equate to accepting every person's own worldview as an equal truth to your own? Is not tolerance about accepting people REGARDLESS of what they think or how they live. You do not necessarily have to accept view A as an equally valid truth as view B but you can certainly be friends with that person, treat them with respect, kindness, fairness, you just do not have to agree with them. An Irish Proverb; "It is in the SHELTER of each OTHER that the people live."
So, it's OK to drive a guy out for supporting a belief shared by 40+ percent of Americans? Is it then OK for folks who believe as he does to fire all those on the other side?
Where does that end? Let's BURN THE WITCH!
READ the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments! http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
Who here is for intimidation and bullying people who speak freely, of their own accord, against things you don't like to hear? Is this what it has come? I don't like what you say so therefore I'm going to make you pay? This isn't the America I grew up in. This is more like a mob and the last time I looked, we looked down on the mob mentality as being venal and troglodyte. If you don't like or are offended at what someone says, then don't support them or their product, but the this makes the gay rights movement look like its nothing more than a knee-breaking, intimidation, protection racket. This give fuel to the fire that The Velvet Mafia is legit. Is it?
You're right, he's free to say whatever he wants. He just has to make sure that everything he has ever said never hurt anyone's feelings. Even in retrospect. I mean, can you believe it? As soon as he took that position as CEO, his first move was to donate money to a legislative proposition that passed years ago. Clearly he's a Time Lord.
"Will deny" or "already passed and would have denied?" If you're going to get upset about Prop 8 it might help to know more than you seem to know. You're not helping your stance any getting upset about what you read on a flyer on campus.
I'd love to hear the mental gymnastics you'd have to pull to get that idea.
When did it get into people's heads that they have a right not to be offended? When did this same meme reach the point where this right not to be offended extended to a secondary right to protest and throw a fit until the cause of their indirect offense is thrown into a gutter somewhere? You're right though, what effect does his off the clock activity have to do with the product offered? Is he going to suddenly support gay rights now that he's been thrown from a company position? Is this same sort of witch hunt going to motivate more people to side with gays in the future? (Obviously not counting those that might do so to avoid the mob of "righteous" anger.)
The whole thing is another ring in the Oppression Olympics. People can't drink a glass of water these days without considering if there is an excuse to be offended by it first and then demand the filtration plant manager is fired for wearing the wrong color tie or having insulted a minority at some point.
An aside, can anyone remind me the last time that a mainstream religious congregation did this to a person or a company? Every week we hear about the lastest Chikfila, Mozilla, etc outrage/boycott etc. I don't seem to hear much of the other way around. I wonder why that is.
Yes, I have no issues with what he thinks is money is spent on. You have as much right to be inside his wallet he has for being inside your bedroom. Taking umbrage because he supported an opposite stance to what you support doesn't change the product offered nor does it change how the product will be delivered. Its childish to get offended because somebody you don't like got promoted.
Resist the Gaystopo!
http://www.truthrevolt.org/pet...
Whatever happened to marriage just being between a man and a woman? I just don't understand this "new school" of thought.
Says the guy who doesn't seem to realize that Prop 8 already passed.
Don't like Eich's position on same-sex "marriage?" Don't use JavaScript.
There's nothing insightful about this post. Furthermore, oh_my's post might have been a bit snyde, bit it definitely was not trolling. Let's get our act together shall we,,,
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
Perhaps you just need a good man to show you how to boycott? /s
The resigning members of the board wanted an outsider who would have a background in mobile devices because they wanted to get Firefox OS up from its 0.1% share. Now that they have used a donation from a while ago when they had no problem with one of their founders who made that donation who will they get? And will they regret who they get?
If the replacement is one of Kevin Packingham, Scott Forstall or Steve Sinofsky will any of the concerned citizens realize that they would have been played for fools?
Che Guevara had homosexuals shot solely for being homosexuals.
What idiots like you and Sarah Palin don't grasp is that civil rights don't remove you from consequences for your actions. They just give you the freedom to engage in those actions in the first place.
Some idiot said that Sarah Palin should be shot and was not fired. Imagine if anyone said it about the idiot that she can legitimately look down on as being not the sharpest knife in the drawer one Barack Obama how long would it be before getting fired?
Would you make the same demand of political conformity for the figurehead of an organization who donated $1000, 5 years ago, to the side you disagree with, in a political campaign regarding abortion, the death penalty, censorship of pornography, religious freedom, or other controversies where one (or both) side alleges to be defending human rights? If so, that would be a massive boycott... And if not, why not?
You forgot Ajax Football Club you insensitive clod!
And... it looks like you don't really have an argument. I win this one.
Futurist Traditionalism
Also Godwinned in 1. Clearly you don't have an argument either.
Keep in mind that most of what you bemoan as "bigotry" existed for thousands of years, all over the earth, before your "Enlightenment" values.
Now, as modern society continues to fall apart internally and has persistent problems that it cannot address, it's clear that the ancients were right and people like you -- pompous jerks who think emotion is a substitute for logic, and who just want a reason to be better than realists like me -- have been wrong all along.
As your society fails, you'll be first against the wall. And the best part is that it won't be me doing it.
Futurist Traditionalism
I've actually proposed a solution that addresses that.
So has everyone who's assumed the anti-gays were being honest about their motivations and actions. However, you don't have to look far into the issue to find two reasons why this idea fails:
1. Not all churches are united in their beliefs about who should and should not be allowed to be married. Believe it or not, some are OK with it. So if we leave the definition of marriage to churches, then we either have a state-sponsored church which is given the authority to define marriage, or every church gets to define it however they like, which simply leads to gays finding tolerant churches to marry them, which renders the entire "marriage protection" effort moot, as everyone's marriage essentially means nothing as it may or may not be recognized by any particular church. A solution that fails to solve the problem is worthless.
2. The "no gay marriage" constitutional amendments also prohibit the state from allowing civil unions that offer equal rights. They don't mention this at their "protect marriage" rallies, but when you go to the voting booth and read the amendment, it says that gays cannot marry, they cannot get civil unions, and the state cannot create anything else of the sort to give the gays what they want. The simple fact is that this isn't about marriage being a religious thing that only religion should be allowed to decide. It's about homophobes discovering an argument they can make that, on the surface, sounds legitimate enough to convince a sizeable portion of the population who cannot be bothered to read two paragraphs of text on a ballot to support them.
Can't blame you for thinking that your solution would work, though. I mean, if the anti-gay groups were being honest, and their concerns really were about churches not wanting to marry gays, then what you propose would solve that problem. ...but, that's just not what this is about. They simply don't like gays and want to harm them in any way that they can, and they realize that they need a majority on their side to do that, which is why they've created this "marriage protection" narrative.
I'm a gay rights supporter, but, sorry, but this is just fascism. The "gay mafia" just forced a company to ditch its CEO for advocating a position that more than half the country supports, and Obama supported until August 2012, when he needed cash. This is what creates backlash effects and sets the movement behind; perhaps for decades. The left has to be reminded that tolerance works both ways. They're behaving worse than evangelicals. Even the duck dynasty guy wouldn't have demanded your head. And really...doesn't the inventer of JavaScript get any slack!
I find that I am yet again the victim of victim politics. The gays supporting prop 8 are no different than all the other phony victims that are trying to use the government to rob the tax payer. No matter what you may think, every one of us has the right to discriminate against those who we disagree with. It is not right for use to interfere with another person if they are not causing harm. On the other hand, forcing others to contribute to health and other benefits using the government as your agent to rob and pillege is slavery and theft. It is no different than if you had robbed us in public, in broad daylight with a gun. Everyone who supported prop 8, and any other pro-victim prop, is guilty and should be ashamed. You can't fight crime with crime.
Looking out of your window and seeing and Enlightened and Tolerant corpse swinging from every lamppost.
The kind of lock-step intolerance on display at mozilla (Diversity of form, no diversity of thought) is how minorities end up in ovens. Your foolishness is astounding.
You all have bashed a man because of his beliefs and rights. If he supported Prop 8 then it is not for you to judge him or run him off. I have worked with many different people and some of them, I did not agree with their beliefs, but i respected them and did not try to run them off and make a public example of it. This is a federal offense what you as the employees of Mozilla have done and given this company a bad name now. I have used the Mozilla browser for a long time.
However, because of your offensive action, I will remove it from every computer I have and any that i work on. I close the door to this company until you apologize to Mr. Eich publicity like you bashed him.
Thank you and good bye.
No, it's two lessons.
The first lesson learned here is that giving money to block things like gay rights and equality will haunt your career.
The second lesson learned here is that if you are a big corporation, you now need to be very careful not to hire someone that has spent money on blocking gay rights.
All in all this means that a lot less money will be spent on blocking gay rights, and probably a lot less money in blocking a lot of other good things as well.
It might suck for Eich, but meddling like that with peoples life might bite you in the end, even if he's ok now (is he?). Things shouldn't be without consequences just because your rich and in the CEO-sphere, quite the opposite, I would say.
nuff said
I have not seen this Mccarthyism applied to abortion, the death penalty, censorship of pornography, or other controversies in which one (or both) side claims it is about rights. For example, in the abortion controversy, one side claims to be fighting for the recognition of the human right to life (the most important human right) while the other claims to be fighting for the woman's right to her own body (a very important human right indeed). Yet I don't see any figurehead resigning because they donated $1000 to NARAL, 5 years ago. It seems to be accepted that a person's private political activism, done off-work, quietly, not using the company brand, and not against the company core mission, is their own choice. This should apply to the homosexuality controversy too. Ideas need to be debated on their merits, not on reward and punishment.
Political donations below a certain limit (say, half a minimum wage) should be allowed to be anonymous. The ballot is secret for a reason, and small donations should be secret too (except for aggregate statistics).
I'm the guy who does not tolerate homophobia, who doesn't care showing his support to gay friends and LGBT community in general to gain all the rights they want and need. However, what Eich did was having an opinion. And being fired for having an opinion is bullshit. He actually offered to try hard to support LGBT rights within Mozilla.
Mozilla didn't hire him because he opposed gay marriage. Mozilla hired him because he was the creator of javascript, the single most important technology today for Mozilla. He was a competent professional and he did not do anything as a professional that went against the rights of others. As a human being, he did something that was not at all illegal.
What I consider is the worst is that you can get fired because of an opinion as long as that opinion is unpopular. I do have unpopular opinions. Everybody does. Opinions of people change and adapt to the circumstances with time. I am very pissed because of that.
I'm very sick of seeing this sort of thing going on. It's none of your business if this man contributed to something he felt strongly about. What a sad world it's getting to be when you crucify everyone who doesn't think exactly the same way you do. Now that you've gone out of your way to expose yourselves as intolerant progressive communists, I think I'll just mosey over to another browser.
He's not attacking anything, he's defending something. Homosexual couples married in states that allow it have discovered that it does NOT automatically grant them the rights they were supposedly seeking so let's cut the crap.
I fucking hate the current state of the western world and the western thought.
No one has proven conclusively that children raised by same-sex parents are really "normal" people who have no problems identifying their sexuality, mating and raising a new generation.
Homosexuality is a deviation - it's been scientifically proven. Now I don't understand how and why it has gained so much strength and power so that these sexual minorities actually tell other normal people how we should live.
I don't ask to ban them, or to put them in a ghetto. I just hope that some day they will be deprived of their outlandish freedoms in the net and in media. Stop gay propaganda for fuck's sake!
// b.
You forget one very important fact...Marriage is not a right - it is an institution. It is a construct which governs social customs and behavior.
In other words - you cannot legislate it one way or the other.
The term marriage was created as a construct to give people a set of guidelines on how to copulate, procreate, and pass on societies values. These guidelines, which have essentially existed since the dawn of civilization, best describe how to BEST go about doing something - in this case...the continuation of society. There is a reason that the male/female couple is identified as the best solution for the construct of marriage, because the opposite genders physically, emotionally, and mentally compliment each other in perfect harmony.
you might argue that there are some male/female couples that cannot have kids and cannot abide by this construct. I say to you that is why we have institutions that deal with adoption, to allow these couples to raise children, and use their complimentary assets, to raise well balanced and contributing members of society.
Let's not forget that many recent studies show that children who have been adopted by same-sex couples have a statistically significant increase in the chance that they will become violent offenders, drug addicts, suicidal, live in or just above the poverty line, demonstrate intense saddness in their daily lives, and otherwise be mentally unstable members of society.
http://c-fam.org/en/2012/7224-study-shows-homosexual-parenting-not-equal-to-heterosexual-marriage
Let's think about the future of Western society and rethink our guilt-tripped acceptance of gay marriage.
That's why i just got rid of Firefox and thunderbird