4 ms·

To me, the message was "Mozilla is about promoting trendy idea", rather than openness. If we cannot support and debate "wrong" ideas, then we're not very open

To me, the message was "Mozilla is about promoting trendy idea", rather than openness. If we cannot support and debate "wrong" ideas, then we're not very open in my opinion.

bonaldi 10y ago
Saying that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals is not a "trendy idea", it's basic equality. I'm not sure why you think "employment as CEO" is the metric for whether "we" "support and debate [inequality] as an idea"
- humanrebar 10y ago
  It was literally a new trend in this case. The proposition that Eich supported actually passed with a majority of votes in California. The trend is that opinions have slowly evolved in the subsequent decade. The shift was from "we can treat people equally while keeping marriage heterosexual" to "gay marriage is an inalienable human right". Nobody was advocating for oppressing people in their minds.
  - bonaldi 10y ago
    Sure, to be fair, few people think they're advocating for evil. But the Supreme Court found it was an unjustified removal of rights, so it turned out that the holders of that opinion were, in the opinion of the court's interpretation of the US Constitution, in fact advocating oppression. All of which begs the question of whether removing a CEO on the losing side of such a debate is tantamount to the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy.
- dorfsmay 10y ago
  > Saying that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals is not a "trendy idea", it's basic equality. Equality of what? Marriage is not based in physics or biology. It's a made up concept, actually concepts, plural. There are countries where it means one man + a limited number of women, there are countries where it means one man + as many women as he can afford (and can afford taking care of all the kids), there are countries where it means one man + one woman, and now there are countries where it means 2 adult homo sapiens regardless of sex. There are countries where it can only be between adults, there are countries where legal children can become a legal adults by getting married. etc... Shouldn't equality include polyamorists? Why isn't it? What about minors who have the legal right to have sex, can they get married? Actually, what about kids who are legally entitled to own stuff, forget about sex? etc.... As far as I am concerned, marriage is just a legal contract that regulates what is owned by the different parties, and as such, none of the setup described here should be excluded. It does get a little bit more complicated when it comes to succession of active assets, for example polyamorists could daisy chain over time and earn retirements for somebody who was part of that chain and died hundred years ago, so there would be some tweaks to be done there, but that shouldn't be a blocker. Now do you still think "gay marriage" (as opposed to other forms) wasn't just a trendy idea? Are you ok with polyamorist marriages? If not, even though that this is your personal opinion, should you be pushed out of your job because of it?
  - bonaldi 10y ago
    Equality of what? Equality of ability to exercise the right to marry and have a family (eg as noted in the declaration of human rights). As for polygamy, that's not quite got the same status, no. And the UN Human Rights ctte has called for it to be outlawed, as it already is in many US states, because it violates the dignity of women in particular. So I think that is vastly more complicated and legally murky area than two-party adult marriage. Regardless, I fail to see how the extended riff on edge cases and the revelation that marriage isn't a physical or biological construct has anything at all to do with its trendiness.
lr4444lr 10y ago
I'm saying it's besides the point: the controversy became a distraction regardless of the morality behind either side, which was perpetuating an terrible divisiveness for too long in the board's estimation. We don't know what happened in the internal meetings about it, but we do know some of the fallout, e.g. OkCupid's redirection of Firefox users to other browsers. Eich's presence was toxic to the "brand" in a large segment of the community, and that's one of the primary duties of the CEO to keep in good standing - he became ineffective in that aspect, pure and simple.
ianbicking 10y ago
It was not not about Mozilla promoting anything. There was both open criticism and support for Eich within Mozilla, but by far the largest reaction to Brendan Eich came from the public. Public reaction to Mozilla is not the same as Mozilla, and Mozilla can't control it.

To me, the message was "Mozilla is about promoting trendy idea", rather than openness. If we cannot support and debate "wrong" ideas, then we're not very open in my opinion.

bonaldi 10y ago

Saying that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals is not a "trendy idea", it's basic equality. I'm not sure why you think "employment as CEO" is the metric for whether "we" "support and debate [inequality] as an idea"

humanrebar 10y ago
It was literally a new trend in this case. The proposition that Eich supported actually passed with a majority of votes in California. The trend is that opinions have slowly evolved in the subsequent decade. The shift was from "we can treat people equally while keeping marriage heterosexual" to "gay marriage is an inalienable human right". Nobody was advocating for oppressing people in their minds.
- bonaldi 10y ago
  Sure, to be fair, few people think they're advocating for evil. But the Supreme Court found it was an unjustified removal of rights, so it turned out that the holders of that opinion were, in the opinion of the court's interpretation of the US Constitution, in fact advocating oppression. All of which begs the question of whether removing a CEO on the losing side of such a debate is tantamount to the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy.
dorfsmay 10y ago
> Saying that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals is not a "trendy idea", it's basic equality. Equality of what? Marriage is not based in physics or biology. It's a made up concept, actually concepts, plural. There are countries where it means one man + a limited number of women, there are countries where it means one man + as many women as he can afford (and can afford taking care of all the kids), there are countries where it means one man + one woman, and now there are countries where it means 2 adult homo sapiens regardless of sex. There are countries where it can only be between adults, there are countries where legal children can become a legal adults by getting married. etc... Shouldn't equality include polyamorists? Why isn't it? What about minors who have the legal right to have sex, can they get married? Actually, what about kids who are legally entitled to own stuff, forget about sex? etc.... As far as I am concerned, marriage is just a legal contract that regulates what is owned by the different parties, and as such, none of the setup described here should be excluded. It does get a little bit more complicated when it comes to succession of active assets, for example polyamorists could daisy chain over time and earn retirements for somebody who was part of that chain and died hundred years ago, so there would be some tweaks to be done there, but that shouldn't be a blocker. Now do you still think "gay marriage" (as opposed to other forms) wasn't just a trendy idea? Are you ok with polyamorist marriages? If not, even though that this is your personal opinion, should you be pushed out of your job because of it?
- bonaldi 10y ago
  Equality of what? Equality of ability to exercise the right to marry and have a family (eg as noted in the declaration of human rights). As for polygamy, that's not quite got the same status, no. And the UN Human Rights ctte has called for it to be outlawed, as it already is in many US states, because it violates the dignity of women in particular. So I think that is vastly more complicated and legally murky area than two-party adult marriage. Regardless, I fail to see how the extended riff on edge cases and the revelation that marriage isn't a physical or biological construct has anything at all to do with its trendiness.

lr4444lr 10y ago

I'm saying it's besides the point: the controversy became a distraction regardless of the morality behind either side, which was perpetuating an terrible divisiveness for too long in the board's estimation. We don't know what happened in the internal meetings about it, but we do know some of the fallout, e.g. OkCupid's redirection of Firefox users to other browsers. Eich's presence was toxic to the "brand" in a large segment of the community, and that's one of the primary duties of the CEO to keep in good standing - he became ineffective in that aspect, pure and simple.

ianbicking 10y ago

It was not not about Mozilla promoting anything. There was both open criticism and support for Eich within Mozilla, but by far the largest reaction to Brendan Eich came from the public. Public reaction to Mozilla is not the same as Mozilla, and Mozilla can't control it.