4 ms·

I don't think anyone's really worried that Mozilla is going to stop being inclusive. They want to punish Brendan Eich for opposing marriage equality. Saying tha

by natrius 13y ago

I don't think anyone's really worried that Mozilla is going to stop being inclusive. They want to punish Brendan Eich for opposing marriage equality. Saying that Mozilla won't change isn't going to change people's minds. Personally, I don't see much of a gain to be had here. If it were a for-profit company, I'd probably boycott them, not because it helps the cause of marriage equality at all, but because punishing people who are jerks feels good. But it's Mozilla, an organization whose goals I support. I don't care if it's led by a jerk. Punishing him doesn't make the world a better place at all.

victorhooi 13y ago
The below isn't necessarily targeted at the parent post, but just at anybody who's resorting to name-calling, or claiming only their viewpoint is correct. <rant> You claim that "punishing jerks feels good". I'm sorry, but this just comes across as silly internet power-tripping. And who are you to claim somebody is a "jerk". Brendan Eichs has personal beliefs, which I presume you don't agree with. Whoop-de-do. Somebody is on the internet who you don't agree with. Cry me a river. In the olden days, gentleman would simply say, we agree to disagree, and leave it at that. Now, in this age of entitlement, every little boy in his mum's basement just has to get everybody to agree with him, because other peopel ARE WRONG (according to me). You're free to write blog posts saying you disagree with him. Or if you think he's wrong, you can even talk to him directly - in fact, he made a offer that he's happy to speak to anybody in private about it. If anything, he comes across as the bigger person. However, to go around saying, "BRENDAN IS A JERK" - sure, you're "free" to do it - free speech and all, but seriously, it comes across as immature and childish... </rant> However, I agree with the rest of your post - Mozilla does good work. I don't use their browser, but they do a lot for the open-source movement.
- HeyImAlex 13y ago
  These are areas of grey; on one end you probably would say that a white supremacist campaigning for the reinstatement of slavery is kind of a jerk, and on the other you probably wouldn't bat an eye if a guy told you he prefers orange juice to apple. There is no magic in the word "opinion" that gives immunity to criticism. It is then up to us to define where that line lies.
  - victorhooi 13y ago
    Well, to be honest, I wouldn't call a white supremacist a "jerk". And racism is most definitely not equitable to arguing over what's a marriage, and what's not. If this imaginary white supremacist was just some weirdo who genuinely thinks white people are superior, I would probably just label him a strange, somewhat deluded man - I wouldn't hate him though. However, I probably wouldn't invite him over for dinner, either. If, on the other hand, he was going around calling for lynching blacks, that's an entirely different matter - that's illegal (hate crimes). Brandon Eichs hasn't expressed any homophobia, or that he "hates" gays, which is what people seem to be trying to drum up publicity for. He simply has, in his private time, given him support for maintaining the status quo on marriage. You might disagree with that, and think that marriage should be redefined, and that's your right (just as it's his right). But if you descend to the level of name-calling, and saying "Your view is like, so wrong! I'm right!", then we've already lost.
npizzolato 13y ago
I agree I didn't think Mozilla would stop being inclusive, but I have the opposite opinion of you toward for-profit/non-profit companies. If Mozilla were a for-profit company, I would pretty much assume they would just pick whichever CEO could bring them in the most money, and they wouldn't care how much of a jerk he is. I'd probably be annoyed but wouldn't let it change my interaction with that company. But Mozilla is a non-profit with a manifesto. They go to great lengths to describe their principles -- what they believe is right and will make the world a better place. While I know technical ability and business savvy are still important to the CEO of Mozilla, I would expect them to put more importance on whether or not their CEO is a jerk. I don't really want to rehash the whole Eich debate from a couple days ago, but I thought it was interesting we have completely different opinions on how to hold different types of companies responsible.
bsder 13y ago
> Saying that Mozilla won't change isn't going to change people's minds. Because discrimination doesn't always consist of large decisions. The CEO gets a large say in things like benefits--he can choose a plan that is a little different because it would extend coverage on something that primarily affects the LGBT community. The CEO can make subtle decisions on hiring. Like tends to hire like--so if there are two candidates at a higher level and he chooses the one that is anti-LGBT--that's an effect. Discrimination is even always conscious. Look at the reaction time test in "Blink" by Gladwell for data. It will come across as "I like that guy!"--well, you like that guy because he seems to share the same value set as you. The fact that that value set is "anti-LGBT" means that more of those kinds of people are going to wind up in leadership positions. A CEO is making decisions all the time that influence the system in subtle ways. People have a genuine right to be upset about this.

by natrius 13y ago

victorhooi 13y ago

The below isn't necessarily targeted at the parent post, but just at anybody who's resorting to name-calling, or claiming only their viewpoint is correct. <rant> You claim that "punishing jerks feels good". I'm sorry, but this just comes across as silly internet power-tripping. And who are you to claim somebody is a "jerk". Brendan Eichs has personal beliefs, which I presume you don't agree with. Whoop-de-do. Somebody is on the internet who you don't agree with. Cry me a river. In the olden days, gentleman would simply say, we agree to disagree, and leave it at that. Now, in this age of entitlement, every little boy in his mum's basement just has to get everybody to agree with him, because other peopel ARE WRONG (according to me). You're free to write blog posts saying you disagree with him. Or if you think he's wrong, you can even talk to him directly - in fact, he made a offer that he's happy to speak to anybody in private about it. If anything, he comes across as the bigger person. However, to go around saying, "BRENDAN IS A JERK" - sure, you're "free" to do it - free speech and all, but seriously, it comes across as immature and childish... </rant> However, I agree with the rest of your post - Mozilla does good work. I don't use their browser, but they do a lot for the open-source movement.

HeyImAlex 13y ago
These are areas of grey; on one end you probably would say that a white supremacist campaigning for the reinstatement of slavery is kind of a jerk, and on the other you probably wouldn't bat an eye if a guy told you he prefers orange juice to apple. There is no magic in the word "opinion" that gives immunity to criticism. It is then up to us to define where that line lies.
- victorhooi 13y ago
  Well, to be honest, I wouldn't call a white supremacist a "jerk". And racism is most definitely not equitable to arguing over what's a marriage, and what's not. If this imaginary white supremacist was just some weirdo who genuinely thinks white people are superior, I would probably just label him a strange, somewhat deluded man - I wouldn't hate him though. However, I probably wouldn't invite him over for dinner, either. If, on the other hand, he was going around calling for lynching blacks, that's an entirely different matter - that's illegal (hate crimes). Brandon Eichs hasn't expressed any homophobia, or that he "hates" gays, which is what people seem to be trying to drum up publicity for. He simply has, in his private time, given him support for maintaining the status quo on marriage. You might disagree with that, and think that marriage should be redefined, and that's your right (just as it's his right). But if you descend to the level of name-calling, and saying "Your view is like, so wrong! I'm right!", then we've already lost.

npizzolato 13y ago

I agree I didn't think Mozilla would stop being inclusive, but I have the opposite opinion of you toward for-profit/non-profit companies. If Mozilla were a for-profit company, I would pretty much assume they would just pick whichever CEO could bring them in the most money, and they wouldn't care how much of a jerk he is. I'd probably be annoyed but wouldn't let it change my interaction with that company. But Mozilla is a non-profit with a manifesto. They go to great lengths to describe their principles -- what they believe is right and will make the world a better place. While I know technical ability and business savvy are still important to the CEO of Mozilla, I would expect them to put more importance on whether or not their CEO is a jerk. I don't really want to rehash the whole Eich debate from a couple days ago, but I thought it was interesting we have completely different opinions on how to hold different types of companies responsible.

bsder 13y ago

> Saying that Mozilla won't change isn't going to change people's minds. Because discrimination doesn't always consist of large decisions. The CEO gets a large say in things like benefits--he can choose a plan that is a little different because it would extend coverage on something that primarily affects the LGBT community. The CEO can make subtle decisions on hiring. Like tends to hire like--so if there are two candidates at a higher level and he chooses the one that is anti-LGBT--that's an effect. Discrimination is even always conscious. Look at the reaction time test in "Blink" by Gladwell for data. It will come across as "I like that guy!"--well, you like that guy because he seems to share the same value set as you. The fact that that value set is "anti-LGBT" means that more of those kinds of people are going to wind up in leadership positions. A CEO is making decisions all the time that influence the system in subtle ways. People have a genuine right to be upset about this.