5 ms·

Also based outside (in Europe). To be honest, these calls for resignation do not only confuse me, they scare me. --- To illustrate my point in a slightly ecce

Also based outside (in Europe). To be honest, these calls for resignation do not only confuse me, they scare me. --- To illustrate my point in a slightly eccentric way, consider my own views on vegetarianism. I strongly believe that mass production of meat constitutes a very deep breach of rights of those animals. For me, this is a rights issue, and I hope it will be considered so in the future. This opinion is currently also held only be few, and it also campaigns for rights of a certain group of beings that currently lack those rights. Still, it's likely that most of you here are supporting that this right is withheld from them. How would you feel if in the future, somebody called for your resignation just because you ate some meat and wore furs in 2014? --- Please remember that I am not equating animal rights and human rights -- those are different problems, and both are very important to me. I am happy so many of people here are supporting same-sex unions, same as me. But it is probable that much like in the 1850s, many of us privately support opinions that may turn into rights issues in the future. Should we be held accountable for that?

icebraining 13y ago
Not to take a position one way or another, but is it a question of being accountable for past opinions? Has he changed his mind?
6cxs2hd6 13y ago
Many Americans have an unhealthy obsession with a cycle of public shaming and redemption. Wanting to see a public figure fall, rehab, and be forgiven. It's a bizarre mashup of public executions and Easter resurrection mythology. There's also a strain of Cultural Revolution. If someone doesn't pass a litmus test, they need to make a public renunciation, or "go away". Even when the litmus test is a good cause, that process is fundamentally sick. To be clear, I think Prop 8 was repugnant. I also think that a world where Microsoft, Google, and Apple don't have Mozilla to keep them honest, is deeply concerning. Anyone with a minority or unpopular opinion should support Mozilla's choice of anyone to lead them who isn't a convicted felon, if Mozilla thinks that individual can further the organization. And no, you don't get to (1) tar and feather someone then (2) say "oh gee now they can't be an effective leader". Edit: Rather than reply, someone gave me their silent disapprobation. Oh the shame.
crassus 13y ago
America was founded by Puritans. Keep this in mind when Americans crusade for righteousness, and you'll be less confused.
- mkr-hn 13y ago
  We are 313.9 million individuals, not some group of settlers who died centuries ago.
nknighthb 13y ago
Eich did not privately support anything, he publicly gave money to remove rights from people who already had them. Your argument doesn't work at all for another, quite obvious, reason: If in, say, 2050, eating meat is widely seen as unacceptable, people who used to eat meat but now believed it to be wrong would be happy to say that. Eich has refused to. At every turn he has instead avoided directly addressing the issue at all. He hasn't even so much as admitted it was wrong to try and enforce his religious beliefs in law. The only reason he would be unwilling to address the issue is if he still holds these beliefs, and will try to turn his religion into law again in the future. It is also irrational to expect someone who wants to enforce their religion on an entire state of 37 million people with unconstitutional laws to not attempt to do so in a much more personal context like running a corporation -- where, it should be noted, both law and social custom hold individual rights to be significantly curtailed to begin with.
- NotOscarWilde 13y ago
  > Your argument doesn't work at all for another, quite obvious, reason: If in, say, 2050, eating meat is widely seen as unacceptable, people who used to eat meat but now believed it to be wrong would be happy to say that. If you're a sensible adult who eats meat today, you have likely heard of the choice of being vegetarian and consciously rejected it. In other words, you won't apologize for it today (which is fine by me). Isn't it then hypocritical to only apologize and change your mind if and only if you're forced to by a majority opinion in the future? I think people in general care about internal consistency and would not apologize for such an opinion -- unless they profoundly believed they were mistaken in the past. In the same way, Brendan Eich (and most of us also) has been raised in a culture neutral or opposing the same-sex union. His opinion may be disliked by many of us, even considered immoral, but we should strive to educate him, debate him, not ostracize him, and definitely not oust him out of an unrelated profession.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    Sure, it would be hypocritical, and I wouldn't do it if I hadn't changed my mind. And people would be free to criticize and ostracize me for it. I might not like it, but that is a possible consequence of holding an unpopular opinion. In fact, if animal rights have so advanced by 2050 that eating meat is widely seen as wrong, I dearly hope I am criticized and ostracized if I refuse to change my mind. I'm already willing to entertain the thought that eating meat may be wrong. It seems unlikely that a majority (or even plurality) would reach that conclusion before I did. Whether or not that comes to pass, though, we are talking here about removing existing rights from beings recognized even by bigots as people now, and doing so in contravention of constitutional provisions that have forbidden just that for nearly 150 years. Edit: By the way, is your country one of the many in Europe that criminalizes holocaust denial? What would you say if Mozilla appointed a known Nazi sympathizer as CEO? Would you really think this reaction was "scary"? If not, why not?
GreenRocket 13y ago
I appreciate your comment and I agree whole-heartedly on the animal issue. One thing I'd like to add. Some major religions view animals as ordained by God for the use of mankind. I hope in the future that the rights of animals are acknowledged and enforced, but assuredly there will be people who will never apologize for eating meat, even when under public condemnation.

icebraining 13y ago

Not to take a position one way or another, but is it a question of being accountable for past opinions? Has he changed his mind?

6cxs2hd6 13y ago

Many Americans have an unhealthy obsession with a cycle of public shaming and redemption. Wanting to see a public figure fall, rehab, and be forgiven. It's a bizarre mashup of public executions and Easter resurrection mythology. There's also a strain of Cultural Revolution. If someone doesn't pass a litmus test, they need to make a public renunciation, or "go away". Even when the litmus test is a good cause, that process is fundamentally sick. To be clear, I think Prop 8 was repugnant. I also think that a world where Microsoft, Google, and Apple don't have Mozilla to keep them honest, is deeply concerning. Anyone with a minority or unpopular opinion should support Mozilla's choice of anyone to lead them who isn't a convicted felon, if Mozilla thinks that individual can further the organization. And no, you don't get to (1) tar and feather someone then (2) say "oh gee now they can't be an effective leader". Edit: Rather than reply, someone gave me their silent disapprobation. Oh the shame.

crassus 13y ago

America was founded by Puritans. Keep this in mind when Americans crusade for righteousness, and you'll be less confused.

mkr-hn 13y ago
We are 313.9 million individuals, not some group of settlers who died centuries ago.

nknighthb 13y ago

Eich did not privately support anything, he publicly gave money to remove rights from people who already had them. Your argument doesn't work at all for another, quite obvious, reason: If in, say, 2050, eating meat is widely seen as unacceptable, people who used to eat meat but now believed it to be wrong would be happy to say that. Eich has refused to. At every turn he has instead avoided directly addressing the issue at all. He hasn't even so much as admitted it was wrong to try and enforce his religious beliefs in law. The only reason he would be unwilling to address the issue is if he still holds these beliefs, and will try to turn his religion into law again in the future. It is also irrational to expect someone who wants to enforce their religion on an entire state of 37 million people with unconstitutional laws to not attempt to do so in a much more personal context like running a corporation -- where, it should be noted, both law and social custom hold individual rights to be significantly curtailed to begin with.

NotOscarWilde 13y ago
> Your argument doesn't work at all for another, quite obvious, reason: If in, say, 2050, eating meat is widely seen as unacceptable, people who used to eat meat but now believed it to be wrong would be happy to say that. If you're a sensible adult who eats meat today, you have likely heard of the choice of being vegetarian and consciously rejected it. In other words, you won't apologize for it today (which is fine by me). Isn't it then hypocritical to only apologize and change your mind if and only if you're forced to by a majority opinion in the future? I think people in general care about internal consistency and would not apologize for such an opinion -- unless they profoundly believed they were mistaken in the past. In the same way, Brendan Eich (and most of us also) has been raised in a culture neutral or opposing the same-sex union. His opinion may be disliked by many of us, even considered immoral, but we should strive to educate him, debate him, not ostracize him, and definitely not oust him out of an unrelated profession.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Sure, it would be hypocritical, and I wouldn't do it if I hadn't changed my mind. And people would be free to criticize and ostracize me for it. I might not like it, but that is a possible consequence of holding an unpopular opinion. In fact, if animal rights have so advanced by 2050 that eating meat is widely seen as wrong, I dearly hope I am criticized and ostracized if I refuse to change my mind. I'm already willing to entertain the thought that eating meat may be wrong. It seems unlikely that a majority (or even plurality) would reach that conclusion before I did. Whether or not that comes to pass, though, we are talking here about removing existing rights from beings recognized even by bigots as people now, and doing so in contravention of constitutional provisions that have forbidden just that for nearly 150 years. Edit: By the way, is your country one of the many in Europe that criminalizes holocaust denial? What would you say if Mozilla appointed a known Nazi sympathizer as CEO? Would you really think this reaction was "scary"? If not, why not?

GreenRocket 13y ago

I appreciate your comment and I agree whole-heartedly on the animal issue. One thing I'd like to add. Some major religions view animals as ordained by God for the use of mankind. I hope in the future that the rights of animals are acknowledged and enforced, but assuredly there will be people who will never apologize for eating meat, even when under public condemnation.