5 ms·

I really think Brendan Eich would have done an excellent job had he been given a chance. After all, as much as there are complaints about Brave, he managed to

I really think Brendan Eich would have done an excellent job had he been given a chance. After all, as much as there are complaints about Brave, he managed to make a legitimately well known contender from scratch in a world that already has seen many other browser attempts go nowhere (and of course, he in some form created and grew Firefox). Of course, "cancel culture" means you have to throw out someone from being CEO, even if that means the whole internet will suffer greatly, because he had a different opinion than whatever was woke. Which is a shame, because the net loss to everyone is much much much greater than the $1000 dollars he gave as a donation, even if it is acceptable to destroy someone's life because they have a opinion that disagrees with yours.

true_religion 6y ago
What, Brendan Eich, did was comparable to opposing the fair housing act in 1966. At the time, he was a member of the majority vote, fighting to continue oppressing a minority group. While, he no doubt would find support, since he is part of the status quo, it’s still reasonable to protest his actions. I don’t think his life was destroyed. He remained a multimillionaire, and immediately founded another competing company. The people whose lives were destroyed were the millions who didn’t have basic marriage rights for decades, and who were systematically humiliated merely for openly being in love.
- afiori 6y ago
  Voting for and supporting the wrong side is part of the democratic process. As far as we know Eich was never biased or prejudiced on on that topic as work, his co-workers in that minority never even realized that he held such political opinions, and there is no reason to think he thought lesser of them. He simply wished for the laws not to change.
  - camgunz 6y ago
    Hate, prejudice, and discrimination are not valid political views. Slavery was once a political issue, and your comment would fit right in with that era also.
    - afiori 6y ago
      > Hate, prejudice, and discrimination are not valid political views. My point is that there is no indication that hate and prejudice where ever part of Eich's views. > your comment would fit right in with that era also. I agree, in that era my comment would have supported people campaigning against slavery in racist states.
      - camgunz 6y ago
        > My point is that there is no indication that hate and prejudice where ever part of Eich's views. Can you explain to me how donating in support of Prop 8 (which would have banned gay marriage) isn't homophobic (and thus hateful, prejudicial, and discriminatory)? Can you explain it in such a way as it would make sense for LGBTQ people but not, say, people of color? > I agree, in that era my comment would have supported people campaigning against slavery in racist states. This isn't a good faith response. Being pro-slavery was never a valid political position. It was simply hateful and cruel. We cannot accept stances like this as civil discourse. Any debate over "well, does group of humans X get the same rights as group of humans Y" is done. The answer is always yes.
        afiori 6y ago
        I am saying that we are conflating some terms. I agree with you that it is discriminatory to bar non-hetero couples from marriage. Given that there is no basis to conflate the intent to be hateful and prejudicial. Based on the very little information we have this is a case of someone having wrong opinions but not being an actual danger to anyone. > Can you explain it in such a way as it would make sense for LGBTQ people but not, say, people of color? no, because I disagree with him and I don't really know of a good reasoning for it. (The only non-contradictory one (a low bar) being that the federal government should not be allowed to decide who can and cannot marry) Regarding slavery it was a good faith response, also it was tongue-in-cheek response. > Being pro-slavery was never a valid political position. It was, it also no longer is, with progress we improve what is a valid position and what is not. Once upon a time in many places abolishing slavery was not a valid political position. Ultimately these are moral decision that each of us needs to take responsibility for.

true_religion 6y ago

What, Brendan Eich, did was comparable to opposing the fair housing act in 1966. At the time, he was a member of the majority vote, fighting to continue oppressing a minority group. While, he no doubt would find support, since he is part of the status quo, it’s still reasonable to protest his actions. I don’t think his life was destroyed. He remained a multimillionaire, and immediately founded another competing company. The people whose lives were destroyed were the millions who didn’t have basic marriage rights for decades, and who were systematically humiliated merely for openly being in love.

afiori 6y ago
Voting for and supporting the wrong side is part of the democratic process. As far as we know Eich was never biased or prejudiced on on that topic as work, his co-workers in that minority never even realized that he held such political opinions, and there is no reason to think he thought lesser of them. He simply wished for the laws not to change.
- camgunz 6y ago
  Hate, prejudice, and discrimination are not valid political views. Slavery was once a political issue, and your comment would fit right in with that era also.
  - afiori 6y ago
    > Hate, prejudice, and discrimination are not valid political views. My point is that there is no indication that hate and prejudice where ever part of Eich's views. > your comment would fit right in with that era also. I agree, in that era my comment would have supported people campaigning against slavery in racist states.
    - camgunz 6y ago
      > My point is that there is no indication that hate and prejudice where ever part of Eich's views. Can you explain to me how donating in support of Prop 8 (which would have banned gay marriage) isn't homophobic (and thus hateful, prejudicial, and discriminatory)? Can you explain it in such a way as it would make sense for LGBTQ people but not, say, people of color? > I agree, in that era my comment would have supported people campaigning against slavery in racist states. This isn't a good faith response. Being pro-slavery was never a valid political position. It was simply hateful and cruel. We cannot accept stances like this as civil discourse. Any debate over "well, does group of humans X get the same rights as group of humans Y" is done. The answer is always yes.
      - afiori 6y ago
        I am saying that we are conflating some terms. I agree with you that it is discriminatory to bar non-hetero couples from marriage. Given that there is no basis to conflate the intent to be hateful and prejudicial. Based on the very little information we have this is a case of someone having wrong opinions but not being an actual danger to anyone. > Can you explain it in such a way as it would make sense for LGBTQ people but not, say, people of color? no, because I disagree with him and I don't really know of a good reasoning for it. (The only non-contradictory one (a low bar) being that the federal government should not be allowed to decide who can and cannot marry) Regarding slavery it was a good faith response, also it was tongue-in-cheek response. > Being pro-slavery was never a valid political position. It was, it also no longer is, with progress we improve what is a valid position and what is not. Once upon a time in many places abolishing slavery was not a valid political position. Ultimately these are moral decision that each of us needs to take responsibility for.