15 ms·

In the 2nd link you posted Brendan Eich himself replies to you tell you to search for "constructive separation". So while he "quit" it didn't sound like he had

In the 2nd link you posted Brendan Eich himself replies to you tell you to search for "constructive separation". So while he "quit" it didn't sound like he had much of an option. I disagree with his views and believe Mozilla did the right thing in severing ties but I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're making it sound. It definitely comes across as a "We expect your resignation by the end of the day or shit will get messy for everyone" situation.

DonHopkins 6y ago
"Constructive Separation" is completely voluntary with both parties. Of course he had an option: the board ASKED HIM TO STAY! Not anything like being fired or asked to leave -- just the opposite. The irony is that Brendan wanted to "Destructively Separate" his victims who were legally joined together in same sex marriages, so it's especially hurtful that Brendan would throw that term around about his voluntary separation with Mozilla, after he maliciously wanted to DESTRUCTIVELY SEPARATE many other human beings in marriage from their loved ones, against their will. Brendan and the Mozilla board both explicitly denied that he was fired or asked to leave. And the Mozilla Board actually tried to get Brendan to stay. According to your theory, they are both liars in collusion. Is that what you really believe or just magically "feel"? Do you have any evidence for your feelings? What more proof of fact do you need than their own widely published words? A long form birth certificate? Are Brendan and the Mozilla board conspiring to both publish a false narrative in lockstep that he was not fired or asked to leave? Then why is he still cooperating with the conspiracy if he was fired or asked to resign? Do you theorize that Mozilla gave him millions of dollars of Google ad blood money that should have gone to open source software development, just to keep his mouth shut? That was the GamerGate conspiracy narrative. Do you believe it too, in spite of all the hard proof to the contrary?
- mshanowitz 6y ago
  But it is your position that he should have been fired, correct?
  - DonHopkins 6y ago
    It is my position that he should have resigned for the good of the Mozilla community (which he did, because what he did was hurtful and mean, and the consequences of his actions make him a poor leader), or justified his homophobic beliefs and kept his job (which I believe are unjustifiable, unless he has some new information that is news to me, which is why I think he should have spoken up instead of resigning if he had some special insight into why same sex marriage should be illegal, or simply admitted he was wrong and sincerely apologized, instead of clinging to an indefensible position). Even anti-gay born-again Christian Gervase Markham certainly didn't hold back trying to defend his indefensible position against same sex marriage, and Mozilla never fired him or asked him to leave as he continued to speak out, until the day he died. And he too testified that Brendan wasn't asked to leave, either. Do you accuse him of being in on the conspiracy, too? How do you theorize they bought him off, a presumably morally upright born-again Christian? http://blog.gerv.net/2014/04/your-ire-is-misdirected/ http://blog.gerv.net/2014/04/your-ire-is-misdirected/ >Hi. My name is Gervase Markham. I’m a supporter of traditional marriage, and I work for Mozilla. In fact, as far as being on the record goes, I believe I’m now the only one. >Many people who agree with me on this issue are very upset about what happened to Brendan Eich, our co-founder and, for two weeks, CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. Brendan was appointed and then, after 10 days under the Internet’s lens of anger based on his donation in opposition to the redefinition of marriage, stepped down and stepped away from Mozilla – to our great loss. >I am assured by sources I trust that Brendan decided to leave of his own accord – he was not forced out. My understanding is that the senior management of Mozilla (many of whom disagree with him on this issue) worked very hard to support him, even if I would not agree with all the actions they took in doing so. However, he eventually felt that it was impossible for him to focus on leading if he was spending all of his time dealing with the continued, relentless news and social media storm surrounding the donation he made. In other words, he wasn’t forced out from the inside – he was dragged out from the outside.

DonHopkins 6y ago

"Constructive Separation" is completely voluntary with both parties. Of course he had an option: the board ASKED HIM TO STAY! Not anything like being fired or asked to leave -- just the opposite. The irony is that Brendan wanted to "Destructively Separate" his victims who were legally joined together in same sex marriages, so it's especially hurtful that Brendan would throw that term around about his voluntary separation with Mozilla, after he maliciously wanted to DESTRUCTIVELY SEPARATE many other human beings in marriage from their loved ones, against their will. Brendan and the Mozilla board both explicitly denied that he was fired or asked to leave. And the Mozilla Board actually tried to get Brendan to stay. According to your theory, they are both liars in collusion. Is that what you really believe or just magically "feel"? Do you have any evidence for your feelings? What more proof of fact do you need than their own widely published words? A long form birth certificate? Are Brendan and the Mozilla board conspiring to both publish a false narrative in lockstep that he was not fired or asked to leave? Then why is he still cooperating with the conspiracy if he was fired or asked to resign? Do you theorize that Mozilla gave him millions of dollars of Google ad blood money that should have gone to open source software development, just to keep his mouth shut? That was the GamerGate conspiracy narrative. Do you believe it too, in spite of all the hard proof to the contrary?

mshanowitz 6y ago
But it is your position that he should have been fired, correct?
- DonHopkins 6y ago
  It is my position that he should have resigned for the good of the Mozilla community (which he did, because what he did was hurtful and mean, and the consequences of his actions make him a poor leader), or justified his homophobic beliefs and kept his job (which I believe are unjustifiable, unless he has some new information that is news to me, which is why I think he should have spoken up instead of resigning if he had some special insight into why same sex marriage should be illegal, or simply admitted he was wrong and sincerely apologized, instead of clinging to an indefensible position). Even anti-gay born-again Christian Gervase Markham certainly didn't hold back trying to defend his indefensible position against same sex marriage, and Mozilla never fired him or asked him to leave as he continued to speak out, until the day he died. And he too testified that Brendan wasn't asked to leave, either. Do you accuse him of being in on the conspiracy, too? How do you theorize they bought him off, a presumably morally upright born-again Christian? http://blog.gerv.net/2014/04/your-ire-is-misdirected/ http://blog.gerv.net/2014/04/your-ire-is-misdirected/ >Hi. My name is Gervase Markham. I’m a supporter of traditional marriage, and I work for Mozilla. In fact, as far as being on the record goes, I believe I’m now the only one. >Many people who agree with me on this issue are very upset about what happened to Brendan Eich, our co-founder and, for two weeks, CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. Brendan was appointed and then, after 10 days under the Internet’s lens of anger based on his donation in opposition to the redefinition of marriage, stepped down and stepped away from Mozilla – to our great loss. >I am assured by sources I trust that Brendan decided to leave of his own accord – he was not forced out. My understanding is that the senior management of Mozilla (many of whom disagree with him on this issue) worked very hard to support him, even if I would not agree with all the actions they took in doing so. However, he eventually felt that it was impossible for him to focus on leading if he was spending all of his time dealing with the continued, relentless news and social media storm surrounding the donation he made. In other words, he wasn’t forced out from the inside – he was dragged out from the outside.