12 ms·

So, hi. I'm gay. My partner of 4 years is from a different country. Because of that, one of the only ways we can live together is to get married and get one of

So, hi. I'm gay. My partner of 4 years is from a different country. Because of that, one of the only ways we can live together is to get married and get one of us citizenship in the other's country that way. To say nothing of other rights related to marriage. Just so you know that. Again: Brendan Eich spent $1,000 to hurt people like me. If gay marriage was not legal, my life would be significantly worse today. I didn't do anything when Eich was made CEO. I probably should have. Let's say I did. Would you say I'd be in the wrong for telling Mozilla that I disagree with their choice of CEO, because he directly hurt people like me and avoids answering questions about whether he's likely to do it again? Hm, here, try this. Instead of something provocative, let's try something else. Suppose Eich donated, say, $500 to strengthen the DMCA. Let's say be advocated for harsher punishments for anybody reverse-engineering a DRM scheme, even for interoperability or other non-piracy purposes. Then suppose he gave another $500 to lobby against net neutrality. When asked about these donations, let's say he refuses to answer or talk about them. Would you be comfortable with him leading Mozilla? Kinda seems like his values might be deeply in conflict with those of the organization, making him a poor choice for CEO. But also ... That's just politics, after all. Has nothing to do with his leadership or technical skill. > I also don't think Eich was "out there advocating" for something. You're right- he was paying other people to go out there advocating for it. Hardly better!

LeFantome 6y ago
I am kind of with the post you are responding to. People have all sorts of private opinions. I hate the DMCA and think it represents an extremely dangerous precedent that completely misrepresents why laws like copyright were created in the first place. The idea is almost more dangerous than the implementation. That said, I think I would be ok with the Mozilla CEO donating to the DMCA as long as he did not take action on that opinion at work. I would be cynical and watching the corporate behaviour like a hawk. I would give little benefit of the doubt in assuming the worst of any official behaviour, policy, or stance that seemed inappropriate. I would be unsympathetic about any consequences that resulted from inappropriately projecting personal values into corporate action. I cannot say that I agree that it is appropriate to take corporate action against somebody for the opinions they hold as a private citizen. A pharmacist needs to provide birth control even if they personally object to it for religious reasons—-because it is the law. If they don’t, there should be consequences ( perhaps losing their license ). However, it does not follow for me that they should be penalized for stating their opinion privately, at a rally, via donation, or even in the local paper. He has the right to stop his own daughter but not to stop mine. What he does with his family is not a good reason for me to go after his business. Now, I might not support his business. That is my personal decision. I might even suggest that others don’t support him either. I sure hope that this would not lead me to lose my job though. That would not seem at all fair to me. In fact, I would consider shutting down my freedom of speech and action like that to be quite unethical.
- XMPPwocky 6y ago
  "I cannot say that I agree that it is appropriate to take corporate action against somebody for the opinions they hold as a private citizen." This is definitely valid! I thiiink I'd still disagree- in a public-facing leadership role, it's just not that easy to separate personal actions from business-related ones- but it's definitely a view I have some sympathy for. I do get where you're coming from. That said- Eich resigned. He wasn't fired. And so far I've seen no real evidence that this wasn't just his decision- that he realized he wasn't the best candidate for CEO because of his past actions. Perhaps he really was just pushed out... If you have anything backing that up, I'd like to see it. Because from what I've read- and that's not too much, so if there's any info I'm missing please fill me in- if I say "I don't like the CEO, I won't donate anymore while he's in charge, and you shouldn't either"...am I in the wrong?
  - krick 6y ago
    > Eich resigned. He wasn't fired. Oh, come on. We all know what "resigned" means, when the one resigning is a CEO.
    - XMPPwocky 6y ago
      Besides things that everybody except me seems to know, do you have any evidence that Eich didn't step down for the reason he said he stepped down?
      - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
        The only reason I can find that he gave was "I resigned because I could not be an effective leader under the circumstances"; I don't know what unrelated reasons you think he gave, although if you want to share a link, that'd be great. Mozilla's own blog post about his resignation was "Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard, and this past week, we didn't live up to it." It's super hard not to read all that as him being asked to resign, and CNET's rather long autopsy article on it says that the board wanted to offer him another position but he chose to quit everything. (That article also says that there was a lot of doubt about whether he'd make a good CEO for reasons entirely unrelated to this; he was known for, as a Mozilla Foundation director put it, having an "inability to connect and empathize with people.")
krick 6y ago
I would be absolutely comfortable with him leading Mozilla. No, I don't hate you, no, I don't hate gays, no, I'm not sorry you feel like Eich has insulted you, I completely don't give a fuck. What I give a fuck about, though, is having a good browser, and since making good browsers has zero relationship to being either pro or anti same-sex marriage, I wouldn't be less comfortable because of the fact the organisation that makes a browser and other web-stuff is controlled by a guy that has a polar position on that matter to what I have. Heck, let me be blunt: if you cannot have a strong mutual disagreement (or even rivalry) with someone, but cooperate with him on the unrelated topic if it is mutually beneficial, it means you are a child and your opinion shouldn't be listened to anyway (let's ignore the fact that behaving like a child turns out to be good for your political career today). As a side-note, pretty much unrelated to the point of that post, I don't see anything wrong with being opposed to same-sex marriage and promoting this opinion. As a matter of fact, I don't see why would anybody be opposed to that, but, hey, that's probably more the reason why somebody who is opposed to that should get a better PR so they could explain me their position. That is what constitutes healthy political climate, which is an opposite of calling a witch-hunt on anybody who has been caught supporting or even having a non-conventional political beliefs (which, ironically, today equals to having so called "conservative" beliefs). Having said all of that, I actually have no idea if Eich would have been a good CEO. I don't know how much in common this job has to what he has previously done, and if he would be good at it. I don't like the current leadership of Mozilla, but there's no proof that Eich would be any better, I simply have no information that would allow me to say "things would be different if only Eich was the CEO".
- XMPPwocky 6y ago
  I'm very sorry if I'm misinterpreting your first paragraph, but, to be clear- would you agree with the following statement? "I don't care if you aren't able to marry your partner, as long as it means there's maybe a better web browser." Because maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that seems to be what's implied. And - if that's the choice you make, well, fine. But it'd be nice to confirm that.
  - krick 6y ago
skissane 6y ago
So, here in Australia we had a plebiscite on legalising same-sex marriage, and I voted in favour of it. If I were a Californian, I would have voted against Prop 8. You say the only reason your partner could immigrate is due to being allowed to marry, but it is actually also due to US immigration laws not recognising civil partnerships or de facto relationships. If they did, your partner could have immigrated even if you weren’t allowed to marry. I don’t know what Eich’s views on immigration laws are (or were), but for all we know he might support such a change to US immigration laws. I think it is very likely that some people who voted for Prop 8 would have supported such a change (I can’t say whether that “some” would have been few or many.) Personally, I think immigration laws should be marriage-neutral, and treat married and unmarried relationships the same. I think it is an important cultural norm that employees be allowed to engage in small-scale, mainstream, private political activity outside of work without getting in trouble at work for doing so. We need this norm to apply at CEO level as well, because the norm at the top flows downhill to the rest of the company. (“Mainstream” means it doesn’t apply to fringe groups like neo-Nazis; “small-scale” means it no longer applies if employee wants to run for public office, lead an activist group, etc) (There is possibly an exception for CEOs supporting policies which directly contradict the core business interests of the company; I don’t think marriage laws relate to the core business interests of a browser vendor; DMCA laws are possibly somewhat closer to those core business interests, but even then probably not close enough - if Mozilla’s product was a content platform in its own right, as opposed to being a tool used to access other people’s content platforms, then DMCA would have been directly relevant to their core business.) I think the biggest blame here lies, not with people who called for Eich’s sacking, but with the failure of the Board to publicly come to his defence. A CEO can weather any amount of public criticism so long as the Board still publicly supports them.
- XMPPwocky 6y ago
  If Eich had explained himself, maybe even said, hey, I have these views about the definition of "marriage" as a word and as an institution, but I support treating civil partnerships as equivalent to man/woman "marriage"- I don't think I'd have as much of an issue with him being CEO. Or, heck, for all I know the donation was a complete accident. Maybe he just slipped and his checkbook fell out of his pocket onto a pen in juuust such a way that it signed a check to that organization. Somebody could have even stolen his identity to make the donation! But when he refused to explain that donation, it's a lot harder to assume good faith, that he totally supports my rights but just has a problem with calling it "marriage", or that it was just a tragic checkbook-related trip-and-fall accident. Maybe he made public statements explaining his views that I haven't seen- links appreciated.
alfiedotwtf 6y ago
> Brendan Eich spent $1,000 to hurt people like me. /thread It’s sad that Eich’s beliefs are still being defended here.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  It's very different to defend one's beliefs vs. one's right to their beliefs. As Voltaire's biographer said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
  - alfiedotwtf 6y ago
    Do you defend people who say COVID is a conspiracy and we should all open schools, go to work, go to parties? Some beliefs are not worth defending
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      I do, particularly when expressed politely, and then I disagree politely. If they can express their beliefs, and I can express mine, then we can try to communicate the truth. But any widespread belief that gets suppressed will fester and spread underground. And again, I am not defending the belief itself, but the expression thereof.
- Igelau 6y ago
  Maybe we're reading different comments, but I don't see his beliefs being defended as much as his right to have those beliefs. Can you tell the difference? If you can, don't play cancel culture and put words in other people's mouths. If you can't, slow down and think about it. You don't win White Knight points for demanding that positions be polarized and pretending that such childishness is a reasoned defense.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lmm 6y ago
Every political position hurts someone. (Heck, the mainstream leftist view is that you have to vote to make it easier to kill babies, and if you don't then you must be an evil person who hates women). If you vote against tax breaks for oil drillers, you're voting to hurt oil drillers. I don't think that's a productive way to frame political disagreement (and I say that as someone who lost most of my life's savings due to a shift in the law). No doubt there are thousands of people from your partner's country who would like US citizenship and can't get it. You're demanding a special privilege for your partner and then talking as though it were a natural right. (My country doesn't give citizenship for any kind of marriage, FWIW).
- bluefinity 6y ago
  You're arguing in very bad faith here. That's a huge misrepresentation of what pro-choice advocates want. > You're demanding a special privilege for your partner and then talking as though it were a natural right. It's not a special privilege. It's a privilege people who are straight get but not people who are gay, which is not okay.
  - lmm 6y ago
    > You're arguing in very bad faith here. That's a huge misrepresentation of what pro-choice advocates want. It's the same kind of misrepresentation as saying Eich spent $1000 to hurt people like the poster. That's my point. No-one in these debates is actually setting out to hurt other people, yet from the other side that's how it's experienced.
    - acdha 6y ago
      How is it a misrepresentation to say that donating to the cause of opposing gay rights harms gay people? There’s a direct cause and effect, linked by exactly that issue - the Prop 8 supporters weren’t even trying to hide it, either. They very explicitly wanted to take a right away from other people, even though they suffered no plausible harm from those people exercising that right.

LeFantome 6y ago

I am kind of with the post you are responding to. People have all sorts of private opinions. I hate the DMCA and think it represents an extremely dangerous precedent that completely misrepresents why laws like copyright were created in the first place. The idea is almost more dangerous than the implementation. That said, I think I would be ok with the Mozilla CEO donating to the DMCA as long as he did not take action on that opinion at work. I would be cynical and watching the corporate behaviour like a hawk. I would give little benefit of the doubt in assuming the worst of any official behaviour, policy, or stance that seemed inappropriate. I would be unsympathetic about any consequences that resulted from inappropriately projecting personal values into corporate action. I cannot say that I agree that it is appropriate to take corporate action against somebody for the opinions they hold as a private citizen. A pharmacist needs to provide birth control even if they personally object to it for religious reasons—-because it is the law. If they don’t, there should be consequences ( perhaps losing their license ). However, it does not follow for me that they should be penalized for stating their opinion privately, at a rally, via donation, or even in the local paper. He has the right to stop his own daughter but not to stop mine. What he does with his family is not a good reason for me to go after his business. Now, I might not support his business. That is my personal decision. I might even suggest that others don’t support him either. I sure hope that this would not lead me to lose my job though. That would not seem at all fair to me. In fact, I would consider shutting down my freedom of speech and action like that to be quite unethical.

XMPPwocky 6y ago
"I cannot say that I agree that it is appropriate to take corporate action against somebody for the opinions they hold as a private citizen." This is definitely valid! I thiiink I'd still disagree- in a public-facing leadership role, it's just not that easy to separate personal actions from business-related ones- but it's definitely a view I have some sympathy for. I do get where you're coming from. That said- Eich resigned. He wasn't fired. And so far I've seen no real evidence that this wasn't just his decision- that he realized he wasn't the best candidate for CEO because of his past actions. Perhaps he really was just pushed out... If you have anything backing that up, I'd like to see it. Because from what I've read- and that's not too much, so if there's any info I'm missing please fill me in- if I say "I don't like the CEO, I won't donate anymore while he's in charge, and you shouldn't either"...am I in the wrong?
- krick 6y ago
  > Eich resigned. He wasn't fired. Oh, come on. We all know what "resigned" means, when the one resigning is a CEO.
  - XMPPwocky 6y ago
    Besides things that everybody except me seems to know, do you have any evidence that Eich didn't step down for the reason he said he stepped down?
    - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
      The only reason I can find that he gave was "I resigned because I could not be an effective leader under the circumstances"; I don't know what unrelated reasons you think he gave, although if you want to share a link, that'd be great. Mozilla's own blog post about his resignation was "Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard, and this past week, we didn't live up to it." It's super hard not to read all that as him being asked to resign, and CNET's rather long autopsy article on it says that the board wanted to offer him another position but he chose to quit everything. (That article also says that there was a lot of doubt about whether he'd make a good CEO for reasons entirely unrelated to this; he was known for, as a Mozilla Foundation director put it, having an "inability to connect and empathize with people.")

krick 6y ago

I would be absolutely comfortable with him leading Mozilla. No, I don't hate you, no, I don't hate gays, no, I'm not sorry you feel like Eich has insulted you, I completely don't give a fuck. What I give a fuck about, though, is having a good browser, and since making good browsers has zero relationship to being either pro or anti same-sex marriage, I wouldn't be less comfortable because of the fact the organisation that makes a browser and other web-stuff is controlled by a guy that has a polar position on that matter to what I have. Heck, let me be blunt: if you cannot have a strong mutual disagreement (or even rivalry) with someone, but cooperate with him on the unrelated topic if it is mutually beneficial, it means you are a child and your opinion shouldn't be listened to anyway (let's ignore the fact that behaving like a child turns out to be good for your political career today). As a side-note, pretty much unrelated to the point of that post, I don't see anything wrong with being opposed to same-sex marriage and promoting this opinion. As a matter of fact, I don't see why would anybody be opposed to that, but, hey, that's probably more the reason why somebody who is opposed to that should get a better PR so they could explain me their position. That is what constitutes healthy political climate, which is an opposite of calling a witch-hunt on anybody who has been caught supporting or even having a non-conventional political beliefs (which, ironically, today equals to having so called "conservative" beliefs). Having said all of that, I actually have no idea if Eich would have been a good CEO. I don't know how much in common this job has to what he has previously done, and if he would be good at it. I don't like the current leadership of Mozilla, but there's no proof that Eich would be any better, I simply have no information that would allow me to say "things would be different if only Eich was the CEO".

XMPPwocky 6y ago
I'm very sorry if I'm misinterpreting your first paragraph, but, to be clear- would you agree with the following statement? "I don't care if you aren't able to marry your partner, as long as it means there's maybe a better web browser." Because maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that seems to be what's implied. And - if that's the choice you make, well, fine. But it'd be nice to confirm that.
- krick 6y ago

skissane 6y ago

So, here in Australia we had a plebiscite on legalising same-sex marriage, and I voted in favour of it. If I were a Californian, I would have voted against Prop 8. You say the only reason your partner could immigrate is due to being allowed to marry, but it is actually also due to US immigration laws not recognising civil partnerships or de facto relationships. If they did, your partner could have immigrated even if you weren’t allowed to marry. I don’t know what Eich’s views on immigration laws are (or were), but for all we know he might support such a change to US immigration laws. I think it is very likely that some people who voted for Prop 8 would have supported such a change (I can’t say whether that “some” would have been few or many.) Personally, I think immigration laws should be marriage-neutral, and treat married and unmarried relationships the same. I think it is an important cultural norm that employees be allowed to engage in small-scale, mainstream, private political activity outside of work without getting in trouble at work for doing so. We need this norm to apply at CEO level as well, because the norm at the top flows downhill to the rest of the company. (“Mainstream” means it doesn’t apply to fringe groups like neo-Nazis; “small-scale” means it no longer applies if employee wants to run for public office, lead an activist group, etc) (There is possibly an exception for CEOs supporting policies which directly contradict the core business interests of the company; I don’t think marriage laws relate to the core business interests of a browser vendor; DMCA laws are possibly somewhat closer to those core business interests, but even then probably not close enough - if Mozilla’s product was a content platform in its own right, as opposed to being a tool used to access other people’s content platforms, then DMCA would have been directly relevant to their core business.) I think the biggest blame here lies, not with people who called for Eich’s sacking, but with the failure of the Board to publicly come to his defence. A CEO can weather any amount of public criticism so long as the Board still publicly supports them.

XMPPwocky 6y ago
If Eich had explained himself, maybe even said, hey, I have these views about the definition of "marriage" as a word and as an institution, but I support treating civil partnerships as equivalent to man/woman "marriage"- I don't think I'd have as much of an issue with him being CEO. Or, heck, for all I know the donation was a complete accident. Maybe he just slipped and his checkbook fell out of his pocket onto a pen in juuust such a way that it signed a check to that organization. Somebody could have even stolen his identity to make the donation! But when he refused to explain that donation, it's a lot harder to assume good faith, that he totally supports my rights but just has a problem with calling it "marriage", or that it was just a tragic checkbook-related trip-and-fall accident. Maybe he made public statements explaining his views that I haven't seen- links appreciated.

alfiedotwtf 6y ago

> Brendan Eich spent $1,000 to hurt people like me. /thread It’s sad that Eich’s beliefs are still being defended here.

nitrogen 6y ago
It's very different to defend one's beliefs vs. one's right to their beliefs. As Voltaire's biographer said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- alfiedotwtf 6y ago
  Do you defend people who say COVID is a conspiracy and we should all open schools, go to work, go to parties? Some beliefs are not worth defending
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    I do, particularly when expressed politely, and then I disagree politely. If they can express their beliefs, and I can express mine, then we can try to communicate the truth. But any widespread belief that gets suppressed will fester and spread underground. And again, I am not defending the belief itself, but the expression thereof.
Igelau 6y ago
Maybe we're reading different comments, but I don't see his beliefs being defended as much as his right to have those beliefs. Can you tell the difference? If you can, don't play cancel culture and put words in other people's mouths. If you can't, slow down and think about it. You don't win White Knight points for demanding that positions be polarized and pretending that such childishness is a reasoned defense.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lmm 6y ago

Every political position hurts someone. (Heck, the mainstream leftist view is that you have to vote to make it easier to kill babies, and if you don't then you must be an evil person who hates women). If you vote against tax breaks for oil drillers, you're voting to hurt oil drillers. I don't think that's a productive way to frame political disagreement (and I say that as someone who lost most of my life's savings due to a shift in the law). No doubt there are thousands of people from your partner's country who would like US citizenship and can't get it. You're demanding a special privilege for your partner and then talking as though it were a natural right. (My country doesn't give citizenship for any kind of marriage, FWIW).

bluefinity 6y ago
You're arguing in very bad faith here. That's a huge misrepresentation of what pro-choice advocates want. > You're demanding a special privilege for your partner and then talking as though it were a natural right. It's not a special privilege. It's a privilege people who are straight get but not people who are gay, which is not okay.
- lmm 6y ago
  > You're arguing in very bad faith here. That's a huge misrepresentation of what pro-choice advocates want. It's the same kind of misrepresentation as saying Eich spent $1000 to hurt people like the poster. That's my point. No-one in these debates is actually setting out to hurt other people, yet from the other side that's how it's experienced.
  - acdha 6y ago
    How is it a misrepresentation to say that donating to the cause of opposing gay rights harms gay people? There’s a direct cause and effect, linked by exactly that issue - the Prop 8 supporters weren’t even trying to hide it, either. They very explicitly wanted to take a right away from other people, even though they suffered no plausible harm from those people exercising that right.