26 ms·

I guess 2 years is long enough for most people to have forgotten the brief storm about his homophobic political activities. I wonder if this appointment would h

• masterleep 13y ago
  Oh noes! Someone whose political beliefs differ from my own! Burn the infidel!
  • anon1385 13y ago
    Eich can rage as much as he likes about inter-racial marriage or homosexual marriage or single parent families or any other topic that gets social conservatives upset. Similarly, other people are free to criticise his views. Especially if he is going to choose to take on the role of being the public face for a large institution.
    • twoodfin 13y ago
      He didn't "rage" about anything, AFAIK. He made a donation to a political campaign that (at the time) won over a majority of voters in California. Civil society is in real trouble if we can't agree to leave passionate debates like these in the political sphere.
      • ossreality 13y ago
        >we can't agree to leave passionate debates like these in the political sphere. Wave the "straight privilege" flag, wave it proud.
      • josefresco 13y ago
        Civil society is in real trouble if we continue to consider these subjects "political" in nature.
      • anon1385 13y ago
        Well he was motivated enough about the issue to make a sizeable political donation (although I will concede it's perhaps not a sizeable amount of money to a millionaire). The idea that you can have a "political sphere" and then a sterile world outside that is free of politics is just totally bizarre to me. I can't even begin to imagine what that would look like or how it would work.
        • twoodfin 13y ago
          It works like having neighbors who voted for the other guy (or god help them, even gave his campaign some money!) but still come over for dinner and let their kids play baseball with your kids.
          • waterlesscloud 13y ago
            Politics has become utterly toxic. I think part of the problem is that it's become an identity thing. That's been intentional on the part of political campaign strategists, since it helps them. It's distressing to see how successful their self-interested manipulation has been. I'm talking about this in broad terms, not any specific issue, and certainly not just this one. And it's both sides of the issues, not merely one party or the other. It's the most insidious kind of marketing there is.
          • anon1385 13y ago
            Perhaps this is a cultural difference then. I'm not from the US. Most of my friends and family are Scottish. Politics (in the broadest sense) is typically the number one topic of discussion in most situations. From dinners with friends to family get togethers to hacker meetups. Do you never talk about politics with people who's views you disagree with? Is that just out of fear of offending them? What the hell do you talk about, the weather?
            • nsmnsf 13y ago
              Luckily, if you live in a place where terrible people barely exist (NYC, SF, Massachusetts, etc.), it isn't really an issue. There are only a few times that I've run into an issue from just openly stating "homophobes are awful" as if it was the weather - the typical response is as if I had said "it's raining" - "well, duh". My general approach is to be glad I pissed those people off, because I now know to never associate with them again. This might be harder in, say, Texas.
    • laughinghan 13y ago
      I strongly disagree with Prop 8, and therefore presumably his views on gay marriage, and I believe not supporting gay marriage does obviously make him a bigoted; but for what it's worth, I haven't seen any reason to believe he's ever "raged" about any of those topics, to anyone. All I've seen is a donation to a bigoted cause (which is disappointing), and then a matter-of-fact public statement that Mozilla's mission is bigger than any one person and their political beliefs, and that he's only willing to discuss this issue in more private channels, which seems totally fair.
    • leoc 13y ago
      Your original comment, and those defending it, didn't simply criticise Brendan Eich's views on gay marriage. If that was all they had done, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What you did was seriously suggest that those views might reasonably disqualify him from being Mozilla's CEO.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • turing 13y ago
    Actively working to restrict the rights of a marginalized population goes beyond simply holding a personal belief. He is free to donate to whatever anti-gay cause he wishes, but we are also free to hold him accountable for it.
    • gum_ina_package 13y ago
      Anti-gay? He's against gay marriage, hardly being anti-gay.
      • aaronbrethorst 13y ago
        Here's a thought experiment for you. Let's say that a black woman and a white man want to get married, but there's a law on the books that says that people of different ethnicities can't get married. Would you say that this is a racist law? Would you say that it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? Anti-miscegenation laws were deemed constitutional in the United States until 1967 when the SCOTUS ruled on the aptly named Loving v. Virginia. Today, this case is cited as precedent for overturning gay marriage bans across the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
        • humanrebar 13y ago
          Banning interracial marriage is ludicrous and bigoted. Also, it's not the same thing at all.
          • zanny 13y ago
            Banning gay marriage is ludicrous and bigoted. Also, it is the same thing at all.
            • humanrebar 13y ago
              Just because I'm succinct doesn't mean my assertions of fact are less valid than the rest of them. I'll gladly go into more detail when I feel like I'll be given a fair hearing.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • nsmnsf 13y ago
    This is not "raising taxes". This is human rights.
    • humanrebar 13y ago
      Same goes for the abortion debate, but you can't blacklist people for disagreeing with you on abortion.
      • dec0dedab0de 13y ago
        Its not fair to compare this with abortion. If you cut out the hyperbole and willful ignorance, both sides of the abortion debate still have compelling arguments.
        • yarrel 13y ago
          It's a polarizing and emotive issue that social conservatives lose their minds over. So it's a fair comparison on that basis.
      • mrottenkolber 13y ago
        You should though.
    • debacle 13y ago
      In what country or under what convention, apart from the LGBT agenda, is "marriage" classified a basic human right? Edit: I stand corrected, and learned something today.
      • robin_reala 13y ago
        All of Europe (under the ECHR)[1]. Worth pointing out though that this doesn’t cover gay marriage yet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Article_12_-_marriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_R...
      • molecule 13y ago
  • PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    I do wonder if you'd react the same way if he wanted to recriminalize interracial marriage.
• Recoil42 13y ago
  That's somewhat disappointing. Has he ever made a public statement on this?
  • vamega 13y ago
    https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/
    • humanrebar 13y ago
      This should really be higher up in the comments. Considering all the anonymous ad hominem against this guy, letting him respond in his own words is essential.
      • floody-berry 13y ago
        That wasn't a response, it was a non-explanation defending his right to support disgusting ideas without facing any criticism for it.
• chimeracoder 13y ago
  When looking to effect change, one has to build coalitions, which sometimes means picking battles. Eich apparently does not believe that I deserve the same rights that he does, but if he is a champion of other values I hold, does that mean I should write him off entirely? While I might prefer someone in a position like his to share all my political views, that's not really feasible. The ones that are relevant to his position as CEO of Mozilla are his views on privacy, software freedom, etc. It's especially relevant to note that this is a donation he made "privately" as an individual (it's public due to financing laws, but it's not the same as (e.g.) giving the keynote address at a NOM event.) I happen to disagree with his views on Proposition 8, but unless they translate into discrimination in the workplace (which is an addressable problem in itself), I might be willing to support his work in one field while separating myself from his personal viewpoints in another field.
  • fingerprinter 13y ago
    If he was a developer, architect or something else like that, I'd generally agree. However, he is now CEO. Imagine just how many people he'd alienate inside Mozilla by basically saying "I don't think you should have the same rights as me". This is not just another political topic, no matter how people would like to frame it that way. This is about treating people the same. You can still think that homosexuality is wrong and support gay marriage. But someone who goes so far as to say no to gay marriage is basically saying they view that group of people as less than another group of people and should have less rights. This is unacceptable.
    • twoodfin 13y ago
      This is unacceptable. C'mon. In 2004 and 2008, with this very much a live issue, something north of 90% of American voters voted for a presidential candidate who professed to be against gay marriage. You are getting and will continue to get the social change you want, but it's crazy to ostracize someone for having the same political view as 2008 candidate Barack Obama. Try to be graceful and persuasive.
      • 13y ago
• bdcravens 13y ago
  it doesn't really fit with the image Mozilla tries to present of themselves Personally I think the company's ethos is consistent with NOT suppressing freedom of speech or political expression.
  • TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
    In what way? If anything, I'd think they support it.
    • aroch 13y ago
      Mozilla supports freedom of speech and the free expression of political beliefs. Thus it is consistent with their corporate ethos to hire/promote someone who has "divergent" political or personal beliefs. That's what bdcravens is saying
      • TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
        I misread "suppressing" as "supporting". Oops.
  • npizzolato 13y ago
    No one is saying he shouldn't have been allowed to donate money to prop 8. Freedom of speech means you are allowed to say whatever you want (i.e. saying something should not be a crime punishable by the government). That does not mean that everything you say should be void of consequence in the realm of public opinion. I for one am glad that Brendan Eich was allowed to make this donation. Now I know that he stands for a position I view as indefensible, and I can choose to remain far away from him and the company he now leads.
  • icebraining 13y ago
    Not making someone CEO is suppressing freedom of speech? Can I be CEO of your company, or are you trying to suppress my views?
• WoodenChair 13y ago
  So now anyone who opposes gay marriage is homophobic? You do know that homophobia is defined as "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people." (New Oxford American Dictionary) Edit: Clearly I touched a nerve - before the hate mail comes in, I should clarify that I don't oppose gay marriage. I support the elimination of government sponsored marriage all together.
  • antimagic 13y ago
    Precisely. There is no rational[1] grounds to oppose gay marriage, so we are left with the only remaining possibility - irrational aversion to homosexuality. [1] where by "rational" I mean justifiable with facts and statistics to back it up.
    • nilsbunger 13y ago
      The real issue for some folks is that "marriage" is a word defined by their religion. (not for you or me, but some folks) If government ditched the word "marriage" and said you can designate a person you "cohabit" with for purposes of taxes, benefits, etc, how many of those folks would be against designating someone of the same gender? Those people I'd call "homophobic".
      • masklinn 13y ago
        Government has as much right to the word as religions, it's not like religions invented marriages. The catholic church, for instance, only took over marriage during the middle ages. Historically, > marriage vows did not have to be exchanged in a church, nor was a priest's presence required. A couple could exchange consent anywhere, anytime. For the first quarter of the common era, the church was split between trying to get the church involved in marriages (e.g. Tertullian recommending that christians "request marriage from their priest") and recommending eternal celibacy and virginity. Augustine and Isodore of Seville developed the sacramentality of Christian marriage (Augustine at least still taught that virginity remained superior). The official catholic declaration of marriage as a sacrament (and thus declaration of the takeover) was actually political: it was made at the Council of Verona in 1184 as part of the case against Cathars, who held that marriage and procreation were evil. The case for marriage belonging to religions is "it's been that way for as long as I've lived". Previously in that category: slavery, illegal abortions, children labour and lots of other awesome company.
• humanrebar 13y ago
  Half of the state of California voted for Prop 8. Supporting it isn't exactly outside of mainstream politics.
  • camus2 13y ago
    Like supporting racial segregation was not a big deal in the south until the civil right act.
    • humanrebar 13y ago
      Nope. Not like that at all.
      • benched 13y ago
        And why not?
        • humanrebar 13y ago
          I consider it obvious. If you're genuinely at a loss, ask the majority of black (or Latino) Californians that voted for Prop 8.
          • benched 13y ago
            You're being obtuse. Are you trying to say that minorities oppressing a different minority is somehow relevant? It isn't. That is completely within the normal (and bad) operating parameters of human nature. It even got its very own parable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_unforgiving_servant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_unforgiving_serv... HN's stupid anti-flame wankery won't let me respond to you, but the point of this parable in this context is that a person caught a break, then immediately turned around and oppressed someone less fortunate. Based on the way you seem to be parsing things, I honestly don't expect you to get this.
            • 13y ago
• nsmnsf 13y ago
  Mozilla now cannot hire a LGBT employee without creating a hostile environment for them. This is a big fucking deal.
  • bdcravens 13y ago
    Perhaps. But corporate America is filled with tons of leadership that in their private lives go to evangelical Christian churches, many of which oppose gay marriage. In private, those same CEOs probably express similar opinions. The only difference is that BE donated a paltry sum in support of a public law. That's the only issue. Discourse around this will change only one thing: the next time they'll give the money to a cousin to make the donation.
  • yid 13y ago
    > Mozilla now cannot hire a LGBT employee without creating a hostile environment for them. His private donations as an individual have nothing to do with necessarily creating hostile workplace environments.
    • joedrew 13y ago
      No, but the hostile workplace environment that's (apparently) already there will probably not be helped by this move. http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1840066.html http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1840066.html Edit: A more descriptive link: http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1761874.html http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1761874.html
      • hft_throwaway 13y ago
        This guy is seriously issuing a "trigger warning" about "legislative violence" for someone not agreeing with his views? Is he a Social Justice Warrior caricature or does he really believe this stuff? I don't see why such content would belong on a company-sponsored blog, but claiming some guy who wants his country to not redefine "marriage" when they already offer civil unions to all is a member of a violent hate group is a bit much.
    • Argorak 13y ago
• debacle 13y ago
  Isn't Eich in favor of marriage privatization?
  • icebraining 13y ago
    I'm in favour of abolishing State-granted marriages too. But that's no reason to support the abolishment of gay marriage, since it will do nothing for the cause, just maintain an inequality of rights.
    • yummyfajitas 13y ago
      As long as married != single, we have an inequality of rights. The only question is whether gays get to join the favored class. As one of the single people that gay activists are willing to throw under the bus as long as they get what they want, I don't see any reason to support them.
      • ossreality 13y ago
        >As one of the single people that gay activists are willing to throw under the bus as long as they get what they want, ahahahahhahaha what the fuck does that even mean?
      • humanrebar 13y ago
        Marriage will never be the same as being single. Otherwise there would be no purpose to being married. If everything were the same, the term "single mother" wouldn't carry an special meaning.
        • icebraining 13y ago
          I think "equal before the State" is implied here. After all, gay couples can already perform marriage rituals and live together, what they lack is the recognition of the official institutions.
          • 13y ago
• EC1 13y ago
  You're causing a fuss because he donated $1,000 to prop 8? Hardly homophobic. I can't believe some people are so petty.
  • eropple 13y ago
    Is "they don't deserve the rights I enjoy" anything but homophobia? (Unless this is a dictionary attack where you're over-parsing "homophobic" as something other than "anti-gay" in some odd quest to prove a meaningless point, in which case, get on with your pedant self.)
    • sehr 13y ago
      Henry Ford published a series of anti-semitic pamphlets, but that didn't take away from his prowess as a founder/CEO. I don't agree with Eich's views, but simply focusing on that aspect of him isn't the strongest of bases upon which to judge him.
      • eropple 13y ago
        It certainly took away from Ford as a basically decent human being, and call me crazy but I kind of value human decency over business savvy, you know? This isn't an attack on you, so please don't mistake it as such, but the celebration of business amorality leads to this sort of calculus and the desire to put that optimal effectiveness above human decency--and that disturbs me deeply. People matter more.
        • sehr 13y ago
          Of course people matter more, and I admit I reached when I brought Henry Ford into this. This entire discussion just strikes me as a bit misguided, there are more to people than a single belief and judging them solely by one aspect of their personality just doesn't agree with me. That's not to say this belief isn't indicative of the rest of Eich's values, but automatically assuming he isn't a decent human being because of it just seems premature without any other evidence.
        • 13y ago
• seivan 13y ago
  I still remember this. I haven't forgotten. I do my very best not using Mozilla products as far as I can. Not using Firefox nor recommending it to anyone as well when they ask for browser.
  • anaphor 13y ago
    Firefox is the only completely free libre web browser that is also mainstream enough to be successful (no Chrome is not completely free software). So you're recommending that people give up their freedom to make a political point? That seems stupid.
    • seivan 13y ago
      Their CEO doesn't want homosexuals to be able to receive benefits that straight couples do and be able get married. I'll recommend anything that doesn't give him more. Lucky thing, his kind would be laughed at in Sweden. "Removing peoples civil liberties? Preposterous".
      • anaphor 13y ago
        You do realize what free software is right? You're not giving him money by using Firefox, and you're completely free to use a forked version of it like Iceweasel if you don't want it to be counted as an install or whatever.
    • pekk 13y ago
      Chromium is
      • anaphor 13y ago
        Yes but there's less of a guarantee that people will continue working on it should google decide to abandon it (which isn't impossible). I have nothing against Chromium though, but it's not very convenient for people stuck on Windows based OSes for example.
• fidotron 13y ago
  No one ever changed their opinion on account of being subjected to a lynch mob or encountering a glass ceiling imposed as a result of it. If you disagree with B.E. then be an example to him of what you hope to achieve: mutual tolerance. Hounding does not achieve anything except increasing animosity all round.
  • egeozcan 13y ago
    Sorry but no one is supposed to tolerate intolerance.
    • humanrebar 13y ago
      So can I be intolerant of that? Or can the irony only go one level deep?
      • egeozcan 13y ago
        I wonder, what part of "speaking up against a person who wants your rights taken away" disturbs you? As long as "not tolerating to intolerance" doesn't mean taking away his rights, I don't see the problem.
    • MrZongle2 13y ago
      Death to the intolerant!
  • briancaw2 13y ago
    "No one ever changed their opinion on account of being subjected to a lynch mob or encountering a glass ceiling imposed as a result of it." That's the most unfactual thing I've heard in a long time.
    • sehr 13y ago
      Is that really the right way to go about things though?
• mrottenkolber 13y ago
  Good to know.
• freditup 13y ago
  The problem with blacklisting someone for a political view is that it can always be done. Right now, it's popular to call people who oppose gay marriage laws 'homophobes' and throw them under the bus. (In this thread, a lot of people seem to imply that Eich should have some sort of repercussions for his donation such as not getting this job.) Let's take a look at some other similar parallels: - Saying people in favor of abortion are for legalized murder, and not hiring them because of that - Saying people opposed to abortion oppress women, and not hiring them because of that - Saying people who support raising taxes are for legalized robbery, and not hiring them because of that - Saying people who oppose more relaxed immigration laws are racist, and not hiring them because of that The list could go on, but the point stands. You can always characterize your political opponent as some sort of monster. But you never should.
  • wpietri 13y ago
    Court after court has found that there is no rational basis for preventing gay marriage. Most recently, one in Michigan: http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4220110321.PDF http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4220110321.PDF The parallels you offer are missing the point, because none of them suggest a CEO has an irrational bias against a significant fraction of his employees. This donation, though, does. Unless Eich has convincingly apologized and demonstrated different views, you have to bet that a lot of people in the San Francisco office and elsewhere are wondering, "Given that my new boss may have an irrational bias against me, is this going to affect my benefits, my chance at promotion, or my working climate?" That's entirely material to his position as CEO. Mozilla is competing with the world's top tech companies for talent, and their main advantage is a clear belief that they're doing good. Anything that taints that could make hiring harder.
    • humanrebar 13y ago
      Courts were also in favor of putting Japanese people in internment camps at one point. It doesn't make them right. If people don't want to work for Mozilla because of Eich, fantastic. They can form their own foundation and work on Iceweasel. Everybody gets what they want.
• jowiar 13y ago
  One thing worth considering is that this could, potentially, open up Mozilla to a wrongful termination/hiring discrimination/harassment lawsuit in the future. Mozilla's CEO is on the record expressing a belief that gay people deserve less rights than straight people, and sexual orientation is a protected class in the state of California. I'm not saying that such a suit would win, but this issue definitely falls under the category of "public statements to be careful of making if one is going to be in a decision-making position".
• mindslight 13y ago
  I too have a hard time accepting that in our Enlightened Year of 2014, an individual is allowed to commit such brash thoughtcrime with impunity. I presume that shortly they will be checking his standing with the parties and that's the last we'll be forced to hear from him! I, for one, am looking forward the remainder of his ilk finally being liquidated so that I can think my own thoughts in peace.
• gdulli 13y ago
  Why is it acceptable to limit the range of political views someone in this position is allowed to have? I lived in CA in 2008 and voted against Prop 8 but I didn't dehumanize the people who disagreed with me, I couldn't have handled the irony of it.
  • bluthru 13y ago
    It's not ironic to not be tolerant of intolerance.
    • humanrebar 13y ago
      Agreed. But it's hypocritical to be intolerant in the name of inclusiveness.
    • PeterisP 13y ago
      Hating, say, religious fundamentalists is exactly as bad as hating homosexuals - hate is hate; intolerance is intolerance. You can say "I think that all people should be treated equally", but saying "I think that all people people should be treated equally, but those who believe X are unfit to be CEO for a public company" is hypocritical. No matter what X is, and if I agree or disagree with X.
• angersock 13y ago
  So, if you follow your link, you don't see any comment from Eich--just a bunch of angry attacks on him and others (including ESR, fair or not). The linked HN discussion from that link in turn has two top comments basically saying "This doesn't matter (as a Mozilla employee" and "This doesn't matter--his technical work is separate from his private life." So, while it is quite the little tempest in a teapot you're kicking up, I'd like to leave you with a question: What have you done that puts you in a position to justify your criticism? As far as the public image of Mozilla, I personally think it is one of being the last free-ish hackers working on the 'Net, and an appointment of the creator of Javascript is directly in line with that. (Why don't you limit yourself to attacks on the man's work instead of the man? After all, there are parts of JavaScript that can be found to be pretty gay, in any particular meaning of the word you choose. I, for example, find myself giddy every time I get to use functions as arguments to other functions and doing manual application and currying.)
  • tommorris 13y ago
    > After all, there are parts of JavaScript that can be found to be pretty gay, in any particular meaning of the word you choose. How about in the preferring-the-sexual-and-romantic-company-of-the-same-sex sense? Because as a gay man and a programmer (admittedly one that greatly dislikes JavaScript), I'm really failing to work out the connection.
    • angersock 13y ago
      Okay, okay, for most meanings of the word you can choose. :| (I think I can maaaaybe stretch it to a joke about semi-colon insertion, but honestly that likely is not the way to proceed here.)
      • ianstormtaylor 13y ago
        I was pretty disappointed to find out you have such high karma and know that most moderating efforts won't do away with useless comments like this in future threads.
• macspoofing 13y ago
  I missed that bit of news. It's been 6 years since Prop 8, I'm curious to hear what his reasons were and what his position is today - usually a person's ethics and moral views evolve with time.
  • JohnTHaller 13y ago
    When asked about it in 2012, he did not retract it or change his views publicly: https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/
• falconfunction 13y ago
  and he invented javascript
  • MichaelGG 13y ago
    Yeah has he issued an apology for that? There was that book, Coders at Work, I think, where the feeling I got was "I was given a few days and forced to come up with something that looked superficially like Java so..."
  • to3m 13y ago
    Quite. The man may yet change his stance on gay marriage, but we cannot now uninvent Javascript...
• catshirt 13y ago
  my thoughts exactly. today i'll be striking Mozilla from the list of companies i'd potentially enjoy employment with.
• Nelson69 13y ago
  Has anyone left github in light of what's come out? From the comment activity, I find it hard to believe that people don't take those issues seriously but I can't say I've heard of much of an exodus from it. There are tons of options too... And, ATMO, the more time between when anything else comes out (if it does) the less likely people are to care. Are there people on the fence that are going to move to another service if the founder isn't sacked or something? I think you could easily look at Mozilla the same way. It's free software, there are tons of alternatives you can use and a lot of you probably already do and this was a personal donation... I hate to say it, but I think a lot of people sort of like to talk support for various issues up a bit more than actually doing things to support them. It's easier to get emotional and post some messages and tweets than it is to actually do something.
  • davidgerard 13y ago
    Yes, they have, and many are preparing to move. I've set up a local repo at work.
• leoc 13y ago
  > I can't help thinking that it doesn't really fit with the image Mozilla tries to present of themselves. Mozilla offers mass-market products. That means that there are many many people who, for example, use Firefox and watch FOX NEWS—and that Mozilla would dearly like for there to be many more of them. I guarantee you that Mozilla doesn't seek, and would be mad to seek, a public image as an organisation that blacklists people for holding mainstream US conservative views. Secondly, if one accepts the principle of industry blacklisting, and not only against individuals with exceptionally marginal or extreme views, we can assess, for example, the HUAC blacklists in this light. Were they proper and appropriate? If not why not? Perhaps because being a mid-century Stalin apologist is entirely forgiveable but being a Prop. 8 opponent is beyond the pale?
• enraged_camel 13y ago
  Legend has it that when critics of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant complained to President Abraham Lincoln about Grant's drinking, Lincoln replied, "I wish some of you would tell me the brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals." Lincoln knew that Grant's drinking was a problem, but he also knew that Grant was the best man for the job. In fact, he had appointed several other generals before Grant who were "well-rounded" with no obvious flaws, but this grossly backfired because they also had no strengths that stood out. In contrast, the South employed generals who were really really good at a few things(and bad at lots of things), and they gave the North a really hard time despite having inferior numbers and equipment.
• burntroots 13y ago
  This is an ideological sideshow. What do his political beliefs have to do with him being CEO of a company? Does he have to think doubleplusgood thoughts to run a company?
  • thinkpad20 13y ago
    If you're a gay or lesbian employee of that company, I'd think it has a lot to do with it.
• tsax 13y ago
  Let's all eat each other in this holier-than-thou contest. It seems to be where everything is heading anyway with reduced privacy. The personal is now political or made to be.
• ryguytilidie 13y ago
  Those responses so well sum up the modern internet. "Sure someone donated a thousand dollars to taking away the basic civil rights of others, no problem. Glad he was being so "christian" in his love of all others, except gays, since we all know they aren't people who deserve rights." "But man, did you see that guy who made a tweet about how he was offended by this??? This has turned into a Christian hating, bigoted witch hunt!"
• suprgeek 13y ago
  I guess what we are saying is that once you become CEO any and every opinion you hold is fair grounds to oppose/vilify you. If there were any suggestions that his private opinions were impacting Mozilla policy/road-map/work environment whatever then yes this stance does beg the question. OTOH what this debate is implying is that if there is any hint of disagreement over opinions between adults, then all bets are off and we lose the ability to work together or tolerate that other person as the head of a corporation.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• saosebastiao 13y ago
  As much as I dont think it will happen, I would love to hear Graydon Hoare speak on the matter. As a fairly high profile (creator of Rust) Mozilla developer that has spoken out against Mozilla in the past about its policies regarding workplace harrassment and discrimination, I wonder if he is as concerned as many of the HN commenters here.