5 ms·

May want to ask Brendan Eich about this.

by eps 8y ago

KirinDave 8y ago
I actually did, on this very website. Know what he did? He tried to suggest his actions were actually in the best interests of LGBT people. Pretty gutsy.
pseudalopex 8y ago
Eich didnt just have an opinion. He materially supported a successful campaign to make his opinion the law of the land. This was widely known while he was still CTO of Mozilla, but nothing came of it until he was promoted to CEO.
- cookiecaper 8y ago
  So it's cool to have an opinion, as long as you don't make any effort to share it, discuss it, or enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from it. Got it. Does that apply to everyone, or only people whose opinions either are now or will some day become unpopular? If the Eich ordeal is instructive of anything, it's that culturally, we are no longer mature enough to handle any discontent and that meaningful political activity must go back underground.
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    It applies to everyone. This idea that conservatives are uniquely penalized is a fantasy. In fact, if anything they're uniquely not penalized. The media will still interview people who voted for Trump and listen to them. Not once on any national television publication (or major news paper) that I've found have we seen, "Ask a Communist or Anarchist how they feel about all this." And most major publications refuse to acknowledge (or only periodically acknowledge) the global and constant destruction of LGBT people that's that going on across half the world, except to occasionally use it as a rhetorical club to promote their racially motivated dislike of folks with dark skin by cloaking it in the veil of islamophobia. > If the Eich ordeal is instructive of anything, it's that culturally, we are no longer mature enough to handle any discontent and that meaningful political activity must go back underground. Yeah, boy, it must have been rough for him. Forced to publicly own and defend his political decisions that created a second class of lesser citizens based on his religious preferences, using company political contributions that his employees overwhelmingly decried. If you think it's fine for him to spend money making gay people into second class citizens, then you cannot deny other citizens the right to try and make other classes of citizens second class. This is the "meaningful" political activity you just cited. It's your reaction not equally immature?
    - smsm42 8y ago
      > The media will still interview people who voted for Trump and listen to them. And here we go. Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not. > "Ask a Communist or Anarchist how they feel about all this." NYT just published a big article about DSA (of which many rank members readily admit they're actually communists but avoid the word for tactical reasons). DSA candidates and members are regularly interviewed. Here's CNN talking about antifa, with quotes: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.... A very sympathetic profile, with the only opponent CNN chose to present being an actual Nazi (they couldn't apparently find anybody else willing to say "physically assaulting people of another ideology may be bad"). > the global and constant destruction of LGBT people that's that going on across half the world Indeed, there are widespread violations of human rights - including and in particularly egregious forms concerning LGBT people - in many countries. And the fact that the mainstream Western press ignores that is a travesty. However, I suspect the reason it is ignoring it is not what you seem to be implying - that they are closet conservatives who ignore these for reasons of their bigotry - but because the press does not want to appear non-PC by criticizing non-western countries and thus opening themselves to (baseless, but still effective) accusations of racism, imperialism and colonialism. > except to occasionally use it as a rhetorical club to promote their racially motivated dislike of folks with dark skin by cloaking it in the veil of islamophobia And here you go. How you can reasonably discuss human rights in country X if when you try to do it you're told "yeah, you're just criticizing them because you hate people with dark skin!"? That derails the discussion immediately and you spend you time slot arguing (unsuccessfully) that you're not a racist. Who needs the trouble? > Yeah, boy, it must have been rough for him And here we go again - we are all for basic civility and inclusion, and hearing everybody. Except for those who disagree with us - you seem to feel free to completely dismiss and devalue their experience, and there's no problem with silencing and excluding them, with being condescending and dismissive over their experience. > Forced to publicly own and defend his political decisions Eich wasn't "forced to defend" his decisions - he never got a chance to defend anything, he was just silenced and hounded out. There was no any defense, there was an attack and then Eich was out. That's how it works - accusation is a sentence (and it's always "guilty and unpersoned"), and that's the whole due process you get. > using company political contributions Eich used his own money, didn't he? > then you cannot deny other citizens the right to try and make other classes of citizens second class. Yes you can. This is what "basic civility" is all about. If you say "I am ready to be civil, but only if nobody ever disagrees with me and rubs me the wrong way", it's useless - anybody could sign under that, the worst criminal in the world would be nice and genial and civil if everything goes exactly as he likes. It's the conflict is where you can see if you mean it. And if you think a particular political point is too important to be civil - ok, fine, I get it - but then please stop preaching civility at the same time. Just tell us "if you agree with us, you'd be fine and if not, we'll mess you up like you won't believe it". And then don't be surprised when people on the other side find somebody who does the same - e.g. Trump - and elect him the president.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > So it's cool to have an opinion, as long as you don't make any effort to share it, discuss it, or enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from it. You can do that, too. OTOH, If you do that in a way which is offensive to the ideals of a large group, you may not like the consequences when they, to, attempt to “enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from” their ideals, especially if you are seeking a job with a high profile public role in an organization which survives on the political support of a group which overlaps significantly with the most offended group by your action. Mozilla Corp isn't a relatigely apolitical business entity, it is, while itself a for-profit corporation, a subsidiary of an ideological nonprofit.
    - BrendanEich 8y ago
      I am a mozilla.org cofounder (full list: https://twitter.com/jwz/status/981028500353069056?s=21 https://twitter.com/jwz/status/981028500353069056?s=21 - note no one currently at Mozilla). We were not “ideological” in the standard political-religion sense (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology). If you are arguing that the Mozilla Foundation, swimming in NFP/NGO seas, has become ideological since founding and spinout from AOL, I agree. But it was not always or necessarily so. FYI the only “Mozilla” people who spoke against me while I was CEO did not work for me; they were in the Foundation.

May want to ask Brendan Eich about this.

by eps 8y ago

May want to ask Brendan Eich about this.

I actually did, on this very website. Know what he did? He tried to suggest his actions were actually in the best interests of LGBT people. Pretty gutsy.

pseudalopex 8y ago

Eich didnt just have an opinion. He materially supported a successful campaign to make his opinion the law of the land. This was widely known while he was still CTO of Mozilla, but nothing came of it until he was promoted to CEO.

cookiecaper 8y ago
So it's cool to have an opinion, as long as you don't make any effort to share it, discuss it, or enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from it. Got it. Does that apply to everyone, or only people whose opinions either are now or will some day become unpopular? If the Eich ordeal is instructive of anything, it's that culturally, we are no longer mature enough to handle any discontent and that meaningful political activity must go back underground.
- KirinDave 8y ago
  It applies to everyone. This idea that conservatives are uniquely penalized is a fantasy. In fact, if anything they're uniquely not penalized. The media will still interview people who voted for Trump and listen to them. Not once on any national television publication (or major news paper) that I've found have we seen, "Ask a Communist or Anarchist how they feel about all this." And most major publications refuse to acknowledge (or only periodically acknowledge) the global and constant destruction of LGBT people that's that going on across half the world, except to occasionally use it as a rhetorical club to promote their racially motivated dislike of folks with dark skin by cloaking it in the veil of islamophobia. > If the Eich ordeal is instructive of anything, it's that culturally, we are no longer mature enough to handle any discontent and that meaningful political activity must go back underground. Yeah, boy, it must have been rough for him. Forced to publicly own and defend his political decisions that created a second class of lesser citizens based on his religious preferences, using company political contributions that his employees overwhelmingly decried. If you think it's fine for him to spend money making gay people into second class citizens, then you cannot deny other citizens the right to try and make other classes of citizens second class. This is the "meaningful" political activity you just cited. It's your reaction not equally immature?
  - smsm42 8y ago
    > The media will still interview people who voted for Trump and listen to them. And here we go. Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not. > "Ask a Communist or Anarchist how they feel about all this." NYT just published a big article about DSA (of which many rank members readily admit they're actually communists but avoid the word for tactical reasons). DSA candidates and members are regularly interviewed. Here's CNN talking about antifa, with quotes: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.... A very sympathetic profile, with the only opponent CNN chose to present being an actual Nazi (they couldn't apparently find anybody else willing to say "physically assaulting people of another ideology may be bad"). > the global and constant destruction of LGBT people that's that going on across half the world Indeed, there are widespread violations of human rights - including and in particularly egregious forms concerning LGBT people - in many countries. And the fact that the mainstream Western press ignores that is a travesty. However, I suspect the reason it is ignoring it is not what you seem to be implying - that they are closet conservatives who ignore these for reasons of their bigotry - but because the press does not want to appear non-PC by criticizing non-western countries and thus opening themselves to (baseless, but still effective) accusations of racism, imperialism and colonialism. > except to occasionally use it as a rhetorical club to promote their racially motivated dislike of folks with dark skin by cloaking it in the veil of islamophobia And here you go. How you can reasonably discuss human rights in country X if when you try to do it you're told "yeah, you're just criticizing them because you hate people with dark skin!"? That derails the discussion immediately and you spend you time slot arguing (unsuccessfully) that you're not a racist. Who needs the trouble? > Yeah, boy, it must have been rough for him And here we go again - we are all for basic civility and inclusion, and hearing everybody. Except for those who disagree with us - you seem to feel free to completely dismiss and devalue their experience, and there's no problem with silencing and excluding them, with being condescending and dismissive over their experience. > Forced to publicly own and defend his political decisions Eich wasn't "forced to defend" his decisions - he never got a chance to defend anything, he was just silenced and hounded out. There was no any defense, there was an attack and then Eich was out. That's how it works - accusation is a sentence (and it's always "guilty and unpersoned"), and that's the whole due process you get. > using company political contributions Eich used his own money, didn't he? > then you cannot deny other citizens the right to try and make other classes of citizens second class. Yes you can. This is what "basic civility" is all about. If you say "I am ready to be civil, but only if nobody ever disagrees with me and rubs me the wrong way", it's useless - anybody could sign under that, the worst criminal in the world would be nice and genial and civil if everything goes exactly as he likes. It's the conflict is where you can see if you mean it. And if you think a particular political point is too important to be civil - ok, fine, I get it - but then please stop preaching civility at the same time. Just tell us "if you agree with us, you'd be fine and if not, we'll mess you up like you won't believe it". And then don't be surprised when people on the other side find somebody who does the same - e.g. Trump - and elect him the president.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > So it's cool to have an opinion, as long as you don't make any effort to share it, discuss it, or enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from it. You can do that, too. OTOH, If you do that in a way which is offensive to the ideals of a large group, you may not like the consequences when they, to, attempt to “enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from” their ideals, especially if you are seeking a job with a high profile public role in an organization which survives on the political support of a group which overlaps significantly with the most offended group by your action. Mozilla Corp isn't a relatigely apolitical business entity, it is, while itself a for-profit corporation, a subsidiary of an ideological nonprofit.
  - BrendanEich 8y ago
    I am a mozilla.org cofounder (full list: https://twitter.com/jwz/status/981028500353069056?s=21 https://twitter.com/jwz/status/981028500353069056?s=21 - note no one currently at Mozilla). We were not “ideological” in the standard political-religion sense (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology). If you are arguing that the Mozilla Foundation, swimming in NFP/NGO seas, has become ideological since founding and spinout from AOL, I agree. But it was not always or necessarily so. FYI the only “Mozilla” people who spoke against me while I was CEO did not work for me; they were in the Foundation.