7 ms·

Which issues would remain private political matters? If he feels the climate change is a real danger to humanity, won't he make Mozilla more environmentally fr

Which issues would remain private political matters? If he feels the climate change is a real danger to humanity, won't he make Mozilla more environmentally friendly? If he feels health care should be a basic right, won't he improve health benefits at Mozilla? If he feels marijuana should be legal, won't he be less likely to do drug tests for employees? Every big political issue affects real lives. Why is no one asking how Brendan Eich feels about climate change, health care and marijuana before deciding if he is fit for the job? I'm not trying to support either side on homosexual marriage. I just think we need to ask the question: Why is someone an extreme, irrational, homophobic bigot (all quotes from this HN thread) if they give money to a political cause opposing it but we don't even care how they feel about health care, or climate change, or marijuana, or abortion, or really just about any other political issue that affects people's lives?

JohnBooty 13y ago
Why is no one asking how Brendan Eich feels about climate change, health care and marijuana before deciding if he is fit for the job? It's because (correct me if I'm wrong) he hasn't spoken publicly about those causes, nor funded them. Also, many wrongs don't make a right. It's a large and common fallacy to suggest there's anything incorrect about questioning his views on human rights simply because his views on (for example) the environment haven't been questioned.
- bzbarsky 13y ago
  You have no idea whether he's funded those causes. The only reason you know about Prop 8 is because the full list of donors to both sides was posted and everyone started looking at it. That's not typical for political donations. As far as I can tell, campaign donation recipients don't even have to publicly report donations of less than $1000 in California. Of course from what I can tell, he also hasn't spoken publicly about the particular issue at hand, except to the extent that people asked him direct questions about it based on the abovementioned public list of donations. I agree that the issue of climate change is a complete non-sequitur here, though.
  - JohnBooty 13y ago
    You have no idea whether he's funded those causes. Pretty solid reason not to discuss his involvement in those causes, I'd say.
    - bzbarsky 13y ago
      Indeed, but that's not the reasoning you used above.
      - JohnBooty 13y ago
        I didn't express any opinion or reasoning at all about whether or not we should discuss his other views. What I said is that even if you feel his non-Prop 8 views are (in your opinion) underexamined, that doesn't change the fact that it's correct to question his actions and views regarding Prop 8.
  - davidgerard 13y ago
    His donation re Prop8 quite literally made international news, which is why it's on his Wikipedia article. It's probably the thing his name is known for outside tech circles.
    - bzbarsky 13y ago
      Sure. What does that have to do with what I said?
      - davidgerard 13y ago
        You're implying it was a trivial thing no-one should reasonably be paying much attention to. It appears that, when put the test, this opinion turned out to be incorrect.
        bzbarsky 13y ago
        Uh... I think you're reading things into what I said that simply aren't there. JohnBooty seems to think that the donation was a purposeful public statement, and in particular that the goal of the donation was to make said public statement, which is why there is no public information on any other political donations that Brendan might have made. I was pointing out that there is no information on other things simply because there hasn't been the same level of scrutiny, and that Brendan wasn't exactly going out of his way to speak out in public about his views on this issue (which is why 4 years passed between him making the donation and anyone noticing it). How you got from that to what you think I was "implying" is a bit beyond me.
bradleyjg 13y ago
For better or for worse, under US campaign finance laws political donations are a public act. He could have gone into the voting booth and voted which ever way he wanted on Prop 8 and no one would have known anything about his position on the issue. Just as (presumably, I haven't checked) no one knows his stance on marijuana or climate change. The CEO, particularly of a non-profit that seeks volunteers, is more than just another employee. He's the public face of the organization. So taking a public position which alienates many of the very people the organization needs in order for it to achieve its goals, goes directly to his fitness for the job.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
pyre 13y ago
1. Many companies are run by CEOs that probably don't approve of legal marijuana, and also don't do drug testing. I think this link is tenuous at best. 2. Actively rallying against same-sex marriage shows a level of commitment above just a general disproval of the idea. "I will vote against it" is a weaker position than, "I will put money into making sure that it doesn't happen." 3. Issues like the environment, and health care, while important, aren't discriminatory towards specific groups of people. Would you rather that health care and environmental-sustainability were solved issues, but discrimination wasn't? 4. Do you feel that people who only ask about (e.g.) health care issues are implicitly accepting of discrimination?
- batmansbelt 13y ago
  Your stance in (3) is debatable. These are both issues that have more affect on poor people. E.g. In the Northern hemisphere, the east ends of cities are generally where more poor people live because they are downwind of the pollution (if the geography allows for an east end).
  - pyre 13y ago
    That statement was less of a stance than an explanation. The parent seemed to not understand why people would be so upset about Eich's homophobia, while at the same time not question his other views. My explanation is that people are more up in arms about issues that specifically target a sub-section of people. While health care and environment issues may affect the poor more than the rich, someone's views on either topic don't necessarily translate to "I don't like poor people and want to restrict their rights" in the same way that financially rallying against gay marriage does translates into expressing specific views about a specific group of people.
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    There's a big difference between a policy that has an indirect effect on a variety of groups and one that very explicitly targets a specifically defined group for formal mal-treatment under law. And yes, systematically violating someone's 14th Amendment rights is map-treatment writ large.
MrZongle2 13y ago
Which issues would remain private political matters? Short answer: none, if somebody disagrees with them. This is another sign of our increasingly polarized (and politicized) society. If Eich supported Prop 8 in California, then clearly he's a homophobic tool of the Koch Brothers. If Eich opposed Prop 8, then clearly he's a leftist degenerate and tool of George Soros. I'd like to propose an addition to Shakespeare's list: after the lawyers, we go after the damn partisans.
- JohnBooty 13y ago
  If Eich supported Prop 8 in California, then clearly he's a homophobic tool of the Koch Brothers. If Eich opposed Prop 8, then clearly he's a leftist degenerate and tool of George Soros. You're doing something at least as logically incorrect as the application of partisan labels if you're characterizing this discussion in such a way. I see a pretty good discussion where the overwhelming majority of people are expressing disappointment in one of Eich's actions, not engaging in partisan name-calling.
  - MrZongle2 13y ago
    So it's only partisan if they agree with Eich?
    - jbooth 13y ago
      It's only partisan if the community's split on the issue -- it's not partisan to be against slavery or support women's suffrage, even though it once was, and it's rapidly becoming non-partisan to support equal rights for gay relationships.
      - MrZongle2 13y ago
        So is "the community" an accurate reflection of society at large?
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
amadeus 13y ago
These arguments are not inline with the real problem I have with Brendan Eich. He ACTIVELY contributed to a political campaign who's goal was discriminate against a particular group of people. This is a civil rights issue, it has nothing to do with politics, or beliefs. There are political issues, then there are civil rights issues.
- gnoway 13y ago
  Respectfully, all rights issues, including civil rights issues, are political issues.
Ihmahr 13y ago
Isn't homophobia a good predictor of climate change ignorance, no interest in health care as a right and criminalization of marijuana usage?
- anonymoushn 13y ago
  Being elected to office in the United States is a good predictor of no interest in health care as a right and criminalization of marijuana usage. Perhaps you meant "No interest in compelling citizens to give amounts of money to the insurance industry for no change in service and no interest in verbally opposing marijuana criminalization while refusing to exercise one's right to pardon every marijuana offender in the nation?"
  - Ihmahr 13y ago
    No, my comment stands as it is.

JohnBooty 13y ago

Why is no one asking how Brendan Eich feels about climate change, health care and marijuana before deciding if he is fit for the job? It's because (correct me if I'm wrong) he hasn't spoken publicly about those causes, nor funded them. Also, many wrongs don't make a right. It's a large and common fallacy to suggest there's anything incorrect about questioning his views on human rights simply because his views on (for example) the environment haven't been questioned.

bzbarsky 13y ago
You have no idea whether he's funded those causes. The only reason you know about Prop 8 is because the full list of donors to both sides was posted and everyone started looking at it. That's not typical for political donations. As far as I can tell, campaign donation recipients don't even have to publicly report donations of less than $1000 in California. Of course from what I can tell, he also hasn't spoken publicly about the particular issue at hand, except to the extent that people asked him direct questions about it based on the abovementioned public list of donations. I agree that the issue of climate change is a complete non-sequitur here, though.
- JohnBooty 13y ago
  You have no idea whether he's funded those causes. Pretty solid reason not to discuss his involvement in those causes, I'd say.
  - bzbarsky 13y ago
    Indeed, but that's not the reasoning you used above.
    - JohnBooty 13y ago
      I didn't express any opinion or reasoning at all about whether or not we should discuss his other views. What I said is that even if you feel his non-Prop 8 views are (in your opinion) underexamined, that doesn't change the fact that it's correct to question his actions and views regarding Prop 8.
- davidgerard 13y ago
  His donation re Prop8 quite literally made international news, which is why it's on his Wikipedia article. It's probably the thing his name is known for outside tech circles.
  - bzbarsky 13y ago
    Sure. What does that have to do with what I said?
    - davidgerard 13y ago
      You're implying it was a trivial thing no-one should reasonably be paying much attention to. It appears that, when put the test, this opinion turned out to be incorrect.
      - bzbarsky 13y ago
        Uh... I think you're reading things into what I said that simply aren't there. JohnBooty seems to think that the donation was a purposeful public statement, and in particular that the goal of the donation was to make said public statement, which is why there is no public information on any other political donations that Brendan might have made. I was pointing out that there is no information on other things simply because there hasn't been the same level of scrutiny, and that Brendan wasn't exactly going out of his way to speak out in public about his views on this issue (which is why 4 years passed between him making the donation and anyone noticing it). How you got from that to what you think I was "implying" is a bit beyond me.

bradleyjg 13y ago

For better or for worse, under US campaign finance laws political donations are a public act. He could have gone into the voting booth and voted which ever way he wanted on Prop 8 and no one would have known anything about his position on the issue. Just as (presumably, I haven't checked) no one knows his stance on marijuana or climate change. The CEO, particularly of a non-profit that seeks volunteers, is more than just another employee. He's the public face of the organization. So taking a public position which alienates many of the very people the organization needs in order for it to achieve its goals, goes directly to his fitness for the job.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

pyre 13y ago

1. Many companies are run by CEOs that probably don't approve of legal marijuana, and also don't do drug testing. I think this link is tenuous at best. 2. Actively rallying against same-sex marriage shows a level of commitment above just a general disproval of the idea. "I will vote against it" is a weaker position than, "I will put money into making sure that it doesn't happen." 3. Issues like the environment, and health care, while important, aren't discriminatory towards specific groups of people. Would you rather that health care and environmental-sustainability were solved issues, but discrimination wasn't? 4. Do you feel that people who only ask about (e.g.) health care issues are implicitly accepting of discrimination?

batmansbelt 13y ago
Your stance in (3) is debatable. These are both issues that have more affect on poor people. E.g. In the Northern hemisphere, the east ends of cities are generally where more poor people live because they are downwind of the pollution (if the geography allows for an east end).
- pyre 13y ago
  That statement was less of a stance than an explanation. The parent seemed to not understand why people would be so upset about Eich's homophobia, while at the same time not question his other views. My explanation is that people are more up in arms about issues that specifically target a sub-section of people. While health care and environment issues may affect the poor more than the rich, someone's views on either topic don't necessarily translate to "I don't like poor people and want to restrict their rights" in the same way that financially rallying against gay marriage does translates into expressing specific views about a specific group of people.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  There's a big difference between a policy that has an indirect effect on a variety of groups and one that very explicitly targets a specifically defined group for formal mal-treatment under law. And yes, systematically violating someone's 14th Amendment rights is map-treatment writ large.

MrZongle2 13y ago

Which issues would remain private political matters? Short answer: none, if somebody disagrees with them. This is another sign of our increasingly polarized (and politicized) society. If Eich supported Prop 8 in California, then clearly he's a homophobic tool of the Koch Brothers. If Eich opposed Prop 8, then clearly he's a leftist degenerate and tool of George Soros. I'd like to propose an addition to Shakespeare's list: after the lawyers, we go after the damn partisans.

JohnBooty 13y ago
If Eich supported Prop 8 in California, then clearly he's a homophobic tool of the Koch Brothers. If Eich opposed Prop 8, then clearly he's a leftist degenerate and tool of George Soros. You're doing something at least as logically incorrect as the application of partisan labels if you're characterizing this discussion in such a way. I see a pretty good discussion where the overwhelming majority of people are expressing disappointment in one of Eich's actions, not engaging in partisan name-calling.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  So it's only partisan if they agree with Eich?
  - jbooth 13y ago
    It's only partisan if the community's split on the issue -- it's not partisan to be against slavery or support women's suffrage, even though it once was, and it's rapidly becoming non-partisan to support equal rights for gay relationships.
    - MrZongle2 13y ago
      So is "the community" an accurate reflection of society at large?
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]

amadeus 13y ago

These arguments are not inline with the real problem I have with Brendan Eich. He ACTIVELY contributed to a political campaign who's goal was discriminate against a particular group of people. This is a civil rights issue, it has nothing to do with politics, or beliefs. There are political issues, then there are civil rights issues.

gnoway 13y ago
Respectfully, all rights issues, including civil rights issues, are political issues.

Ihmahr 13y ago

Isn't homophobia a good predictor of climate change ignorance, no interest in health care as a right and criminalization of marijuana usage?

anonymoushn 13y ago
Being elected to office in the United States is a good predictor of no interest in health care as a right and criminalization of marijuana usage. Perhaps you meant "No interest in compelling citizens to give amounts of money to the insurance industry for no change in service and no interest in verbally opposing marijuana criminalization while refusing to exercise one's right to pardon every marijuana offender in the nation?"
- Ihmahr 13y ago
  No, my comment stands as it is.