4 ms·

I support your decision to boycott, although I personally disagree with it. I wish you would give Brendan the chance to repent. First of all, and most importa

I support your decision to boycott, although I personally disagree with it. I wish you would give Brendan the chance to repent. First of all, and most importantly, it's unlikely they are going to shitcan him as CEO. Second, he has not spoken about his motivations for donating to Prop 8. If he was doing so in pursuit of abolishing the marriage institution altogether, I consider that very different than doing it because he only wants straight people to marry. (Since this is a politically charged issue, I will say that while I am personally in favor of abolishing marriage altogether, I think actively working to deny gays the right to marry in the interim is an exceptionally absurd idea.) Third, his views may have changed over the years. If he came out saying he was wrong and donated 10x the amount he donated to Prop 8 to a LGBT charity, I would consider that a win. There are ways to make this right without shitcanning him.

Blahah 13y ago
Perhaps I'm missing something - how could donating to Prop 8 be in support of abolishing the marriage institution? Full text: Section I. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
- chrismonsanto 13y ago
  Sorry, it was a typo.
thinkpad20 13y ago
> I wish you would give Brendan the chance to repent. They have, and he hasn't. This is mentioned in the article.
- chrismonsanto 13y ago
  From the article: > He has not, and said he will not, so it’s too late in my mind. Any public change of opinion at this time would only be to ensure his new powerful position at the Mozilla foundation. I disagree with this, hence my post. I think if he puts his money where his mouth is, that good undoes his past failings. I don't think he is going to use Mozilla as a vehicle for promoting homophobia. Therefore, I see two options: 1) he leaves, Mozilla doesn't contribute to societal homophobia, and there is no monetary contribution. 2) he stays, Mozilla doesn't contribute to societal homophobia, and there is a monetary contribution. (Option #3 where he leaves and also makes a monetary contribution is extremely unlikely to happen, so I will not list it here) I am admittedly very pragmatic about these issues. I don't care if he is shamed by being forced out of the company. I don't think that really helps.
NAFV_P 13y ago
> Since this is a politically charged issue, I will say that while I am personally in favor of abolishing marriage altogether, I think actively working to deny gays the right to marry in the interim is an exceptionally absurd idea. Which aspect of marriage are you referring to, the religious and/or legal ceremony?
- chrismonsanto 13y ago
  I'm referring to the legal distinction between single and married people, and the benefits married people get.
  - NAFV_P 13y ago
    > I'm referring to the legal distinction between single and married people, and the benefits married people get. We need to be accurate here, "the legal distinction between married and unmarried couples". The benefits from marriage come from the legal process, so for unmarried couples to get the same benefits another equivalent legal process, or a new and universal process as a replacement would be required. It seems that another legal process would be the answer, but only if it improves upon the process(es) that it replaces.
    - scott_karana 13y ago
      Why another legal process, when the end result is indistinguishable? Sounds like a convenient way to classify based on morality. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal
      - NAFV_P 13y ago
        > Why another legal process, when the end result is indistinguishable? That was my exact point of thought.
npizzolato 13y ago
> If he came out saying he was wrong and donated 10x the amount he donated to Prop 8 to a LGBT charity, I would consider that a win. There are ways to make this right without shitcanning him. The authors addressed this point. From the article: > If, months ago, he had apologized and said that he’s changed his mind, then this would be water under the bridge. He has not, and said he will not, so it’s too late in my mind. Any public change of opinion at this time would only be to ensure his new powerful position at the Mozilla foundation. That does not seem like an unreasonable position.
- chrismonsanto 13y ago
  So we don't get two threads on the same subject, I made a reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7461830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7461830 > That does not seem like an unreasonable position. I don't think their stance is unreasonable, I just think there is a more constructive alternative.
davidgerard 13y ago
He had the chance. He pointedly didn't take it. https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/

Blahah 13y ago

Perhaps I'm missing something - how could donating to Prop 8 be in support of abolishing the marriage institution? Full text: Section I. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

chrismonsanto 13y ago
Sorry, it was a typo.

thinkpad20 13y ago

> I wish you would give Brendan the chance to repent. They have, and he hasn't. This is mentioned in the article.

chrismonsanto 13y ago
From the article: > He has not, and said he will not, so it’s too late in my mind. Any public change of opinion at this time would only be to ensure his new powerful position at the Mozilla foundation. I disagree with this, hence my post. I think if he puts his money where his mouth is, that good undoes his past failings. I don't think he is going to use Mozilla as a vehicle for promoting homophobia. Therefore, I see two options: 1) he leaves, Mozilla doesn't contribute to societal homophobia, and there is no monetary contribution. 2) he stays, Mozilla doesn't contribute to societal homophobia, and there is a monetary contribution. (Option #3 where he leaves and also makes a monetary contribution is extremely unlikely to happen, so I will not list it here) I am admittedly very pragmatic about these issues. I don't care if he is shamed by being forced out of the company. I don't think that really helps.

NAFV_P 13y ago

> Since this is a politically charged issue, I will say that while I am personally in favor of abolishing marriage altogether, I think actively working to deny gays the right to marry in the interim is an exceptionally absurd idea. Which aspect of marriage are you referring to, the religious and/or legal ceremony?

chrismonsanto 13y ago
I'm referring to the legal distinction between single and married people, and the benefits married people get.
- NAFV_P 13y ago
  > I'm referring to the legal distinction between single and married people, and the benefits married people get. We need to be accurate here, "the legal distinction between married and unmarried couples". The benefits from marriage come from the legal process, so for unmarried couples to get the same benefits another equivalent legal process, or a new and universal process as a replacement would be required. It seems that another legal process would be the answer, but only if it improves upon the process(es) that it replaces.
  - scott_karana 13y ago
    Why another legal process, when the end result is indistinguishable? Sounds like a convenient way to classify based on morality. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal
    - NAFV_P 13y ago
      > Why another legal process, when the end result is indistinguishable? That was my exact point of thought.

npizzolato 13y ago

> If he came out saying he was wrong and donated 10x the amount he donated to Prop 8 to a LGBT charity, I would consider that a win. There are ways to make this right without shitcanning him. The authors addressed this point. From the article: > If, months ago, he had apologized and said that he’s changed his mind, then this would be water under the bridge. He has not, and said he will not, so it’s too late in my mind. Any public change of opinion at this time would only be to ensure his new powerful position at the Mozilla foundation. That does not seem like an unreasonable position.

chrismonsanto 13y ago
So we don't get two threads on the same subject, I made a reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7461830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7461830 > That does not seem like an unreasonable position. I don't think their stance is unreasonable, I just think there is a more constructive alternative.

davidgerard 13y ago

He had the chance. He pointedly didn't take it. https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/