7 ms·

I am born and raised in Dallas, so please use that as context, as I was not privy to the lively debate that Californian's had while this prop was being discusse

by TheBiv 13y ago

I am born and raised in Dallas, so please use that as context, as I was not privy to the lively debate that Californian's had while this prop was being discussed. I don't understand why someone who made a donation, in good faith and clarity, should have to be subjected to this sort of back and forth questioning and tearing down his ability to lead a company. Sadness, I understand. Disagreement, I understand. However calling Brendan unfit to be CEO simply bc of a donation he made, to a cause you don't agree with; seems completely unfair.

bluthru 13y ago
Denying people equal standing in society just because of their sexual preference is completely unfair.
- TheBiv 13y ago
  I appreciate your reply. As he stated, he would be more than willing to discuss the issue with you personally, just not on the internet, so I cannot speak to the way he would reply. However, I respect his right to feel the way he feels.
  - lern_too_spel 13y ago
    I respect his right to feel whatever he wants. I don't respect his decision to spend money putting fear-mongering homophobic ads on TV that ultimately deny other people the right to live as equals. That's where a lot of us draw the line and where I find it difficult to support him as a figurehead for anything that I also support.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  I completely agree, but it's a personal decision. Unfortunately this goes both ways: People with conservative views feel just as strongly about how you might wish to live your life, and allowing that to enter the employment sphere would be equally unacceptable.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - kevingadd 13y ago
      I'm not really sure what Orwell and the 14th amendment have to do with my comment. I don't think I ever supported Prop 8? I just don't see any way to exclude Eich from the workplace without exposing myself or others to harm. I think there has to be a shield between one's personal beliefs and professional conduct, only pierced by truly unacceptable things like felonies or abuse. As much as I dislike prop 8, I don't think a donation really rises to the level of a felony or abuse. Is there a way to achieve the desired result (everyone but Eich is protected in the workplace) that I'm missing?
jowiar 13y ago
There's a big difference between "cause I don't agree with" and "cause that believes some people are more equal than others". In particular, this donation calls into question his ability to be fair and accepting regarding people who he will encounter in the workplace. If Eich's donation was about his taxes being too high, or that weed should or shouldn't be legal, that's fine. But his donation is implying that one group of people, some of whom are his employees, deserve less standing in society than another group of people. This is a problem.
- TheBiv 13y ago
  I would agree with you if his employees were speaking about how he brings these views to the workplace. However, this very article is from someone who is saying that his decision to make the donation does not bleed into work and she feels very comfortable with Brendan's ability to lead. That is proof enough for me, and encouraging bc he is able to hold his beliefs and still not let it effect the way he treats his staff.
- 67726e 13y ago
  I think that him wishing to write off a class of people as of lesser standing is a bit disingenuous. Unfortunately, marriage has become a mix of religious, economic, and legal meanings. In my experience, it isn't so much hating another group so much as feeling like something sacred to them is being coopted and horribly distorted. Having something with the same economic and legal standings but not called marriage generally seems fine by them. That's at least been my experience talking to friends/family/etc. I live in South Carolina for reference. At the end of the day, we really don't know Eich's personal politics and shouldn't pretend to. Unless he starts on z crusade to "hate the gays" or something equally horrible under the banner of Mozilla, what does it matter?
- magicalist 13y ago
  I hope you wouldn't be surprised that there is some group of people that feel this way over almost any political issue. Legalization is one thing, but some people really do feel that taxation is fundamentally theft. Abortion is another big one, of course. I'm surprised many conservatives can live in a civil society at all when from their perspective abortion is state-sanctioned mass murder. In that case, I could certainly see people calling someone so morally bankrupt as to donate to Planned Parenthood unfit to be the "public persona" of Mozilla, and I would imagine the tide on HN would be going the other way, that a donation like that shouldn't have any bearing on his performance in his role as CEO. How about instead of guessing at how he might treat people from a single data point, we treat it as only that, a single data point, and given the evidence seen in places like this submission, see how it actually works in practice? Brendan Eich has obviously been involved in Mozilla and the web community since the beginning, and he's committed himself to things like the code of conduct, which already exists to allow people with different ideas of what constitutes "a problem" to live and work together. I think it's likely that, with vigilance, things will continue to work at Mozilla.
oinksoft 13y ago
In some parts of the US, there's a "lively debate" over this stuff. Where Mozilla Corp. is headquartered, anti-LGBT stances are considered antisocial and kept private. I think that's why it's a big deal.
alexqgb 13y ago
I'm glad you pointed out that you don't live in California. If you did, and had seen the actual campaign, you would know that it was one of the shrillest, most dishonest, most deceitful political campaigns in living memory (which is saying a lot). Indeed, it was the absolute epitome of bad faith, and that would be true regardless of the subject. When Judge Vaughn heard the subsequent legal case against Prop. 8 he invited the supporters to submit any of the "facts" about the "dangers" of gay unions that they'd cited in their media campaign to his court for consideration. That catch was that they'd have to do so under oath, meaning that any known falsehoods presented as truth could lead to charges of perjury. The supporters ended up saying nothing. So while it turned out that these supposedly religious people had no real concern about bearing false witness in the eyes of God (who is, perhaps, more forgiving) they were a lot more circumspect about doing so before the State of California. In terms of lingering ill-will, it's not just the cause people are upset about. It's the extraordinary divisiveness and dishonesty with which it was advanced. And the worst part is that now, after taking such an unambiguous stand against the values of moderation, diversity, and tolerance, Brendan is appealing to those exact values when defending himself against the backlash. Most reasonable people know that tolerance cannot extend to intolerance, and that preserving a society that is generally inclusive and respectful means getting pretty intolerant with those who attack its ground rules. That's what happened here. And the guy who did the attacking seems entirely remorseless.
- lern_too_spel 13y ago
  For the non-Californians among us, search for "Gathering Storm ad" on your favorite search engine. That's the kind of thing Eich's money went to, and it was almost impossible to miss if you watched any TV the week before voting day. If you don't feel a little sick just watching it, you have a stronger stomach than I.
lmkg 13y ago
I am not seeing that many comments in the vein of "unfit to be CEO." To the contrary, I've seen a lot of comments (especially high-voted ones) saying "I disagree, but that's his right." I am seeing quite a few in the vein of "I disagree strongly enough that I will actively lessen my support of Mozilla." These comments are not expressing the opinion that he is unfit as CEO... but if this issue causes enough people to stop supporting Mozilla, that would actually make him unfit to be CEO.
mbesto 13y ago
When you speak with your wallet you speak louder than you can with your mouth. The overall issue here has less to do with his overall ability to be a CEO, and more to do with one of the functions of being a CEO. He clearly took a stance (again with his wallet) against the LGBT community, which fair or not will speak volumes to a large group of users, employees, potential users/employers and partners.

by TheBiv 13y ago

bluthru 13y ago

Denying people equal standing in society just because of their sexual preference is completely unfair.

TheBiv 13y ago
I appreciate your reply. As he stated, he would be more than willing to discuss the issue with you personally, just not on the internet, so I cannot speak to the way he would reply. However, I respect his right to feel the way he feels.
- lern_too_spel 13y ago
  I respect his right to feel whatever he wants. I don't respect his decision to spend money putting fear-mongering homophobic ads on TV that ultimately deny other people the right to live as equals. That's where a lot of us draw the line and where I find it difficult to support him as a figurehead for anything that I also support.
kevingadd 13y ago
I completely agree, but it's a personal decision. Unfortunately this goes both ways: People with conservative views feel just as strongly about how you might wish to live your life, and allowing that to enter the employment sphere would be equally unacceptable.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    I'm not really sure what Orwell and the 14th amendment have to do with my comment. I don't think I ever supported Prop 8? I just don't see any way to exclude Eich from the workplace without exposing myself or others to harm. I think there has to be a shield between one's personal beliefs and professional conduct, only pierced by truly unacceptable things like felonies or abuse. As much as I dislike prop 8, I don't think a donation really rises to the level of a felony or abuse. Is there a way to achieve the desired result (everyone but Eich is protected in the workplace) that I'm missing?

jowiar 13y ago

There's a big difference between "cause I don't agree with" and "cause that believes some people are more equal than others". In particular, this donation calls into question his ability to be fair and accepting regarding people who he will encounter in the workplace. If Eich's donation was about his taxes being too high, or that weed should or shouldn't be legal, that's fine. But his donation is implying that one group of people, some of whom are his employees, deserve less standing in society than another group of people. This is a problem.

TheBiv 13y ago
I would agree with you if his employees were speaking about how he brings these views to the workplace. However, this very article is from someone who is saying that his decision to make the donation does not bleed into work and she feels very comfortable with Brendan's ability to lead. That is proof enough for me, and encouraging bc he is able to hold his beliefs and still not let it effect the way he treats his staff.
67726e 13y ago
I think that him wishing to write off a class of people as of lesser standing is a bit disingenuous. Unfortunately, marriage has become a mix of religious, economic, and legal meanings. In my experience, it isn't so much hating another group so much as feeling like something sacred to them is being coopted and horribly distorted. Having something with the same economic and legal standings but not called marriage generally seems fine by them. That's at least been my experience talking to friends/family/etc. I live in South Carolina for reference. At the end of the day, we really don't know Eich's personal politics and shouldn't pretend to. Unless he starts on z crusade to "hate the gays" or something equally horrible under the banner of Mozilla, what does it matter?
magicalist 13y ago
I hope you wouldn't be surprised that there is some group of people that feel this way over almost any political issue. Legalization is one thing, but some people really do feel that taxation is fundamentally theft. Abortion is another big one, of course. I'm surprised many conservatives can live in a civil society at all when from their perspective abortion is state-sanctioned mass murder. In that case, I could certainly see people calling someone so morally bankrupt as to donate to Planned Parenthood unfit to be the "public persona" of Mozilla, and I would imagine the tide on HN would be going the other way, that a donation like that shouldn't have any bearing on his performance in his role as CEO. How about instead of guessing at how he might treat people from a single data point, we treat it as only that, a single data point, and given the evidence seen in places like this submission, see how it actually works in practice? Brendan Eich has obviously been involved in Mozilla and the web community since the beginning, and he's committed himself to things like the code of conduct, which already exists to allow people with different ideas of what constitutes "a problem" to live and work together. I think it's likely that, with vigilance, things will continue to work at Mozilla.

oinksoft 13y ago

In some parts of the US, there's a "lively debate" over this stuff. Where Mozilla Corp. is headquartered, anti-LGBT stances are considered antisocial and kept private. I think that's why it's a big deal.

alexqgb 13y ago

I'm glad you pointed out that you don't live in California. If you did, and had seen the actual campaign, you would know that it was one of the shrillest, most dishonest, most deceitful political campaigns in living memory (which is saying a lot). Indeed, it was the absolute epitome of bad faith, and that would be true regardless of the subject. When Judge Vaughn heard the subsequent legal case against Prop. 8 he invited the supporters to submit any of the "facts" about the "dangers" of gay unions that they'd cited in their media campaign to his court for consideration. That catch was that they'd have to do so under oath, meaning that any known falsehoods presented as truth could lead to charges of perjury. The supporters ended up saying nothing. So while it turned out that these supposedly religious people had no real concern about bearing false witness in the eyes of God (who is, perhaps, more forgiving) they were a lot more circumspect about doing so before the State of California. In terms of lingering ill-will, it's not just the cause people are upset about. It's the extraordinary divisiveness and dishonesty with which it was advanced. And the worst part is that now, after taking such an unambiguous stand against the values of moderation, diversity, and tolerance, Brendan is appealing to those exact values when defending himself against the backlash. Most reasonable people know that tolerance cannot extend to intolerance, and that preserving a society that is generally inclusive and respectful means getting pretty intolerant with those who attack its ground rules. That's what happened here. And the guy who did the attacking seems entirely remorseless.

lern_too_spel 13y ago
For the non-Californians among us, search for "Gathering Storm ad" on your favorite search engine. That's the kind of thing Eich's money went to, and it was almost impossible to miss if you watched any TV the week before voting day. If you don't feel a little sick just watching it, you have a stronger stomach than I.

lmkg 13y ago

I am not seeing that many comments in the vein of "unfit to be CEO." To the contrary, I've seen a lot of comments (especially high-voted ones) saying "I disagree, but that's his right." I am seeing quite a few in the vein of "I disagree strongly enough that I will actively lessen my support of Mozilla." These comments are not expressing the opinion that he is unfit as CEO... but if this issue causes enough people to stop supporting Mozilla, that would actually make him unfit to be CEO.

mbesto 13y ago

When you speak with your wallet you speak louder than you can with your mouth. The overall issue here has less to do with his overall ability to be a CEO, and more to do with one of the functions of being a CEO. He clearly took a stance (again with his wallet) against the LGBT community, which fair or not will speak volumes to a large group of users, employees, potential users/employers and partners.