3 ms·

To be honest, I suspect Brendan Eich probably has some pretty fucking stupid opinions about homosexuality. But what does that have to do with software? And shou

To be honest, I suspect Brendan Eich probably has some pretty fucking stupid opinions about homosexuality. But what does that have to do with software? And shouldn't he have the right to hold those opinions, offensive as they may be, without worrying about their effect on his career? On one hand, corporate "position statements" (which declare opinions like cells declare osmotic pressure) like this are pretty sickening. On the other hand, I think it's a bit silly that the tech community has required Mozilla to make this one.

justizin 13y ago
he has the right, but his job is to foster cooperation and in many cases to have people work for him and if the community doesn't accept his leadership, that pretty much means any period of time that he's in charge is a waste of time at best and a regression at worst.
- transitionality 13y ago
  SJWs are a tiny, insane minority. You neither represent, nor speak for the community. You certainly do not speak for me.
thirsteh 13y ago
Opinion, yes, but that is not what this is. We know with absolute certainty that he donated a non-trivial amount of money to block gay marriage legislation in California. That is an action solely intended to deprive a people of the rights granted to everyone else, not merely an opinion.
- Jach 13y ago
  $1k is a pretty trivial amount of money to anyone with a career in tech as long as Brendan's.
  - thirsteh 13y ago
    $100k is a pretty trivial amount of money to anyone whose career made them a billionaire. The amount, as a donation to deprive people of the rights that others have, is non-trivial to me, although it may very well be trivial to many others. Now that is an opinion.
    - Jach 13y ago
      So we're in agreement that it was a trivial amount of money. Materially maybe it could have helped make ~60 protesting signs? Will you edit your original comment to cut the non-trivial bit? I'm wondering what amount is trivial to you as a "donation to deprive people of the rights that others have"? My prediction: 3d9bfbc7789889002dc71f36cdce8af8fa93be7edb1ef6561c10181cc9c4e7a4
      - thirsteh 13y ago
        We are not in agreement.
boomlinde 13y ago
> And shouldn't he have the right to hold those opinions, offensive as they may be, without worrying about their effect on his career? Since you are bringing this to the table, let's turn the question around: Should he? Why? I agree that he should have the right to hold an opinion, but what earns him the right not to have his public exhibition of it affect his career?
- Jach 13y ago
  If public outrage becomes so effective at creating a policy to not hire people with certain opinions, and to purge people who are discovered to hold certain opinions, indeed purging people from entire professional fields to which they may have devoted significant portions of their lives mastering, then we are condemning those people to a kind of economic death. This is only marginally better than actually condemning them to death (which doesn't seem beyond some of the "die x-scum die" types).
- intslack 13y ago
  You're esentially asking why he shouldn't be publically bullied out of a position in which he's the most qualified because of his (assumed) belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman (a belief that the majority Californians who voted in 2008 also held.) I don't agree with that belief, but the comments here and around the web have been absolutely disgusting: comparing him to the KKK and the Nazis, claiming he hates gays, calling him a bigot, etc. More likely, his belief stems from ignorance instead of hate or bigotry. Why shouldn't the public exhibition of his opinion affect his career? Because people should be taking the moral high ground and empathize in a way that Eich obviously didn't when he made that donation. Perhaps, instead of shitposting on HN or parading around Twitter about his (assumed) opinions when people haven't actually met Eich, they should reach out and offer their perspective by sending him a personal e-mail detailing how his actions have harmed people. He might even see it your way and change his deeply held belief.
  - boomlinde 13y ago
    > You're esentially asking why he shouldn't be publically bullied Read again. I am asking why his public opinion shouldn't affect his career. > Because people should be taking the moral high ground and empathize in a way that Eich obviously didn't when he made that donation. As far as I'm concerned his position affords him wealth and political influence in the organization, so his opinions, especially when they are not in line with those of the organization he represents, reasonably will affect his career, as much as they will affect the public opinion on Mozilla. Empathizing with him and calling for his resignation are not mutually exclusive.
amputect 13y ago
> which declare opinions like cells declare osmotic pressure I got a good laugh out of this, well put! Brendan Eich has the right to hold those opinions and whatever other opinions he wishes to hold. He has the right to publicly express them in the form of spoken or written words, campaign donations, or any other number of legal rights guaranteed by the first amendment. Here's some rights he does not have: 1) The right to unconditional employment, or a constitutional right to be the CEO of Mozilla. 2) The right to freedom from criticism of his beliefs. 3) The right to freedom from social consequences of his beliefs. Remember that criticism is not censorship, those are different things entirely and when they are conflated it's almost always to protect people with those aforementioned pretty fucking stupid opinions. His opinions about homosexuality are offensive and disappointing to a lot of people. Why shouldn't they be able to express that to Mozilla? And if Mozilla feels like enough people are upset with their decision, they have the right to respond to market demands. Let's veer wildly into strawman territory here. Let's say that instead of Brendan Eich, let's say Mozilla found some other extremely talented technologist to take the reins, but they were coincidentally an active, avowed white supremacist. Would you still think he has the right to hold those opinions without worrying about their effect on his career? What if he believed that non-Muslims should be put to the sword, or that women should be the property of their husbands, or any number of other horrible, backwards beliefs. Still cool with him as the CEO of Mozilla? If not, then we're really just disagreeing over how horrible someone's opinions have to be before they disqualify them from the position as the head of the CEO of a company that prides itself on inclusiveness and equality.
- bzbarsky 13y ago
  Would you describe someone who made a single monetary donation to a white supremacist cause 6 years ago and didn't say anything about it to anyone at the time, such that it took 4 years to discover the donation had even been made, an "active, avowed white supremacist"? I'm not saying there are easy answers here, but I think that your hypothetical assumes someone who lets their horrible backwards beliefs affect their professional actions. So let's consider the counterfactual that more closely models the current situation: someone who made a single donation to a white supremacist cause 6 years ago, has not publicly expressed any white supremacist views other than making the donation, routinely works with non-white colleagues in a reasonable way, and supports workplace involvement in Black History Month activities is appointed CEO. What should happen? I want to say I'd be OK with this, but it's hard to predict visceral reactions ahead of time. :( As another interesting counterfactual, say that instead of donating to a white supremacy organization they donated to Nation of Islam. Otherwise, assume it's all the same: works fine with Jews and whites, doesn't speak out on race/religion issues in day-to-day interactions. I want to say I'd be OK with this too, though personally I'd have more skin in the game here than in the other cases, and I suspect people would generally be more OK with this situation than with the person who donated to a white supremacist cause... (As an aside, would you consider Nation of Islam as an organization that believes "non-Muslims should be put to the sword"?) Edit: I think at the heart of the issue is that people have a really hard time accepting that someone might make such a donation but be OK working with the sort of people the organization they donated to is against. I know _I_ have a hard time imagining anyone who donates to a "women should be the property of their husbands" organization interacting well with women in a workplace environment. It doesn't help that I don't know any people who would make such a donation, leaving me guessing at the reasons why one would, and Occam's Razor would say be that they hold deep-rooted beliefs about women being inferior. I've tried to come up with some other reasons someone might make such a donation while being OK working with women, but they all seem contrived to me. If faced with an actual example of a person who made such a donation but works well with women, I would be _very_ interested in talking to them to find out where they're coming from. As a result, people are operating from assumptions which don't actually match reality as well as they should in this case. Your counterfactual of an "active, avowed white supremacist" more closely models how people are perceiving this situation, based on their knowledge about the donation only, and no knowledge about Brendan's day-to-day interactions with LGBTQ colleagues, than do my counterfactuals. But mine more closely model what's really going on...

justizin 13y ago

he has the right, but his job is to foster cooperation and in many cases to have people work for him and if the community doesn't accept his leadership, that pretty much means any period of time that he's in charge is a waste of time at best and a regression at worst.

transitionality 13y ago
SJWs are a tiny, insane minority. You neither represent, nor speak for the community. You certainly do not speak for me.

thirsteh 13y ago

Opinion, yes, but that is not what this is. We know with absolute certainty that he donated a non-trivial amount of money to block gay marriage legislation in California. That is an action solely intended to deprive a people of the rights granted to everyone else, not merely an opinion.

Jach 13y ago
$1k is a pretty trivial amount of money to anyone with a career in tech as long as Brendan's.
- thirsteh 13y ago
  $100k is a pretty trivial amount of money to anyone whose career made them a billionaire. The amount, as a donation to deprive people of the rights that others have, is non-trivial to me, although it may very well be trivial to many others. Now that is an opinion.
  - Jach 13y ago
    So we're in agreement that it was a trivial amount of money. Materially maybe it could have helped make ~60 protesting signs? Will you edit your original comment to cut the non-trivial bit? I'm wondering what amount is trivial to you as a "donation to deprive people of the rights that others have"? My prediction: 3d9bfbc7789889002dc71f36cdce8af8fa93be7edb1ef6561c10181cc9c4e7a4
    - thirsteh 13y ago
      We are not in agreement.

boomlinde 13y ago

> And shouldn't he have the right to hold those opinions, offensive as they may be, without worrying about their effect on his career? Since you are bringing this to the table, let's turn the question around: Should he? Why? I agree that he should have the right to hold an opinion, but what earns him the right not to have his public exhibition of it affect his career?

Jach 13y ago
If public outrage becomes so effective at creating a policy to not hire people with certain opinions, and to purge people who are discovered to hold certain opinions, indeed purging people from entire professional fields to which they may have devoted significant portions of their lives mastering, then we are condemning those people to a kind of economic death. This is only marginally better than actually condemning them to death (which doesn't seem beyond some of the "die x-scum die" types).
intslack 13y ago
You're esentially asking why he shouldn't be publically bullied out of a position in which he's the most qualified because of his (assumed) belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman (a belief that the majority Californians who voted in 2008 also held.) I don't agree with that belief, but the comments here and around the web have been absolutely disgusting: comparing him to the KKK and the Nazis, claiming he hates gays, calling him a bigot, etc. More likely, his belief stems from ignorance instead of hate or bigotry. Why shouldn't the public exhibition of his opinion affect his career? Because people should be taking the moral high ground and empathize in a way that Eich obviously didn't when he made that donation. Perhaps, instead of shitposting on HN or parading around Twitter about his (assumed) opinions when people haven't actually met Eich, they should reach out and offer their perspective by sending him a personal e-mail detailing how his actions have harmed people. He might even see it your way and change his deeply held belief.
- boomlinde 13y ago
  > You're esentially asking why he shouldn't be publically bullied Read again. I am asking why his public opinion shouldn't affect his career. > Because people should be taking the moral high ground and empathize in a way that Eich obviously didn't when he made that donation. As far as I'm concerned his position affords him wealth and political influence in the organization, so his opinions, especially when they are not in line with those of the organization he represents, reasonably will affect his career, as much as they will affect the public opinion on Mozilla. Empathizing with him and calling for his resignation are not mutually exclusive.

amputect 13y ago

> which declare opinions like cells declare osmotic pressure I got a good laugh out of this, well put! Brendan Eich has the right to hold those opinions and whatever other opinions he wishes to hold. He has the right to publicly express them in the form of spoken or written words, campaign donations, or any other number of legal rights guaranteed by the first amendment. Here's some rights he does not have: 1) The right to unconditional employment, or a constitutional right to be the CEO of Mozilla. 2) The right to freedom from criticism of his beliefs. 3) The right to freedom from social consequences of his beliefs. Remember that criticism is not censorship, those are different things entirely and when they are conflated it's almost always to protect people with those aforementioned pretty fucking stupid opinions. His opinions about homosexuality are offensive and disappointing to a lot of people. Why shouldn't they be able to express that to Mozilla? And if Mozilla feels like enough people are upset with their decision, they have the right to respond to market demands. Let's veer wildly into strawman territory here. Let's say that instead of Brendan Eich, let's say Mozilla found some other extremely talented technologist to take the reins, but they were coincidentally an active, avowed white supremacist. Would you still think he has the right to hold those opinions without worrying about their effect on his career? What if he believed that non-Muslims should be put to the sword, or that women should be the property of their husbands, or any number of other horrible, backwards beliefs. Still cool with him as the CEO of Mozilla? If not, then we're really just disagreeing over how horrible someone's opinions have to be before they disqualify them from the position as the head of the CEO of a company that prides itself on inclusiveness and equality.

bzbarsky 13y ago
Would you describe someone who made a single monetary donation to a white supremacist cause 6 years ago and didn't say anything about it to anyone at the time, such that it took 4 years to discover the donation had even been made, an "active, avowed white supremacist"? I'm not saying there are easy answers here, but I think that your hypothetical assumes someone who lets their horrible backwards beliefs affect their professional actions. So let's consider the counterfactual that more closely models the current situation: someone who made a single donation to a white supremacist cause 6 years ago, has not publicly expressed any white supremacist views other than making the donation, routinely works with non-white colleagues in a reasonable way, and supports workplace involvement in Black History Month activities is appointed CEO. What should happen? I want to say I'd be OK with this, but it's hard to predict visceral reactions ahead of time. :( As another interesting counterfactual, say that instead of donating to a white supremacy organization they donated to Nation of Islam. Otherwise, assume it's all the same: works fine with Jews and whites, doesn't speak out on race/religion issues in day-to-day interactions. I want to say I'd be OK with this too, though personally I'd have more skin in the game here than in the other cases, and I suspect people would generally be more OK with this situation than with the person who donated to a white supremacist cause... (As an aside, would you consider Nation of Islam as an organization that believes "non-Muslims should be put to the sword"?) Edit: I think at the heart of the issue is that people have a really hard time accepting that someone might make such a donation but be OK working with the sort of people the organization they donated to is against. I know _I_ have a hard time imagining anyone who donates to a "women should be the property of their husbands" organization interacting well with women in a workplace environment. It doesn't help that I don't know any people who would make such a donation, leaving me guessing at the reasons why one would, and Occam's Razor would say be that they hold deep-rooted beliefs about women being inferior. I've tried to come up with some other reasons someone might make such a donation while being OK working with women, but they all seem contrived to me. If faced with an actual example of a person who made such a donation but works well with women, I would be _very_ interested in talking to them to find out where they're coming from. As a result, people are operating from assumptions which don't actually match reality as well as they should in this case. Your counterfactual of an "active, avowed white supremacist" more closely models how people are perceiving this situation, based on their knowledge about the donation only, and no knowledge about Brendan's day-to-day interactions with LGBTQ colleagues, than do my counterfactuals. But mine more closely model what's really going on...