4 ms·

Here we go again, another thread to paint Brendan Eich as the anti-christ for a donation he made to a single organization over 6 years ago. This is getting rid

by DatBear 13y ago

Here we go again, another thread to paint Brendan Eich as the anti-christ for a donation he made to a single organization over 6 years ago. This is getting ridiculous now.

Udo 13y ago
I see you made this account specifically to talk about the donation. First off, most non-religious people don't think in terms of "anti-christs" all that much. Outside of rhetorical amusement, that term has no real world meaning for most of us. ;) Kidding aside, the view offered of Eich is more nuanced than that. Certainly the man is entitled to his opinion, even if it's morally objectionable - which it definitely is in this case. I know of nothing that suggests Mr Eich is a bad technologist, a bad programmer, or even a bad communicator. He is also, by most accounts, a nice person to chat with, as are most religious extremists if you can interact with them outside of their zealotry area. However, Mr Eich must have known at the time that his employer's name would appear in the donation records. Even at that time, he apparently had no problems with making his own deplorable values part of the Mozilla message. The egregiousness here is not even due to his opinion about gay people per se, but his intention to marginalize them through legislation, which is a gross defect in his civic ethics. And now this guy gets to be CEO - a role that consists of nothing but the projection of personality and personal views. So, yes, it's understandable that people worry about Mozilla at this point.
- sehr 13y ago
  Outside of rhetorical amusement, that term has no real world meaning for most of us. I very much doubt it was meant to be taken literally. he apparently had no problems with making his own deplorable ethics part of the Mozilla message. So essentially, if you are known to be a part of a company, all of your actions and views are representative of said company? I imagine that makes all of the "views expressed here are my own" disclaimers on people's blogs & twitter feeds invalid. a role that consists of nothing but the projection of personality and personal views I think the board of directors would have something to say about that.
- Touche 13y ago
  > First off, most non-religious people don't think in terms of "anti-christs" all that much. Outside of rhetorical amusement, that term has no real world meaning for most of us. Please don't pretend that you speak for everyone who shares with you the fact that they also don't believe in something.

by DatBear 13y ago

Here we go again, another thread to paint Brendan Eich as the anti-christ for a donation he made to a single organization over 6 years ago. This is getting ridiculous now.

Udo 13y ago

I see you made this account specifically to talk about the donation. First off, most non-religious people don't think in terms of "anti-christs" all that much. Outside of rhetorical amusement, that term has no real world meaning for most of us. ;) Kidding aside, the view offered of Eich is more nuanced than that. Certainly the man is entitled to his opinion, even if it's morally objectionable - which it definitely is in this case. I know of nothing that suggests Mr Eich is a bad technologist, a bad programmer, or even a bad communicator. He is also, by most accounts, a nice person to chat with, as are most religious extremists if you can interact with them outside of their zealotry area. However, Mr Eich must have known at the time that his employer's name would appear in the donation records. Even at that time, he apparently had no problems with making his own deplorable values part of the Mozilla message. The egregiousness here is not even due to his opinion about gay people per se, but his intention to marginalize them through legislation, which is a gross defect in his civic ethics. And now this guy gets to be CEO - a role that consists of nothing but the projection of personality and personal views. So, yes, it's understandable that people worry about Mozilla at this point.

sehr 13y ago
Outside of rhetorical amusement, that term has no real world meaning for most of us. I very much doubt it was meant to be taken literally. he apparently had no problems with making his own deplorable ethics part of the Mozilla message. So essentially, if you are known to be a part of a company, all of your actions and views are representative of said company? I imagine that makes all of the "views expressed here are my own" disclaimers on people's blogs & twitter feeds invalid. a role that consists of nothing but the projection of personality and personal views I think the board of directors would have something to say about that.
Touche 13y ago
> First off, most non-religious people don't think in terms of "anti-christs" all that much. Outside of rhetorical amusement, that term has no real world meaning for most of us. Please don't pretend that you speak for everyone who shares with you the fact that they also don't believe in something.