4 ms·

If there's any indication that Eich acted unlawfully in his role as CEO that's an issue. If his personal opinion* simply differs from what's popular in the comm

by jonah 13y ago

If there's any indication that Eich acted unlawfully in his role as CEO that's an issue. If his personal opinion* simply differs from what's popular in the community, then it's just that - different. What if he donated to the NRA or a pro-GMO campaign for example? Would there be similar uproar? This is just mob rule. * I'm making no statement as to whether I agree with either side.

dec0dedab0de 13y ago
What if he donated to the NRA or a pro-GMO campaign for example? Would there be similar uproar? No, because noone see those causes as being founded in fear and hate. EDIT: changed wording for clarity Also, to the downvoters Do you really think we would have heard about all this as much if it were related to other issues?
- batmansbelt 13y ago
  Well, the NRA is at least partially responsible for perpetuating an unhealthy gun culture in the USA that is responsible for thousands of deaths every year. There's plenty to fear and hate about that.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - cobrausn 13y ago
    I'll take the bait. The NRA is reacting to any mention of gun control from the left the same way the left reacts to any mention of abortion restrictions from the right - don't believe anything they say, because they are trying for victory by inches. And considering some of the rhetoric flying around, they probably should (both sides).
  - angersock 13y ago
    Eh, they're no more responsible than the USDA is responsible for unhealthy food or the oil and gas lobby is for pollution or the AMA is for cartel behavior on the supply of doctors. (and in all of those cases, the death tolls are higher.) It's easy for people (especially certain middle-to-high income bracket liberal demographics) to give a pass on hating NRA/rednecks/religious folks while at the same time remaining indignant about what is an issue effecting a small subset of the population. Moreover, while there are very valid arguments to be made in support of gay rights (usually by way of personal liberty, freedom of association, privacy, etc.), you really need to be willing to apply them to folks you don't like.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- dropit_sphere 13y ago
  >No, because no one see those causes as being founded in fear and hate. There is a serious lack of empathy in the viewpoint the parent describes. The premise that "anyone who disagrees with x is motivated by fear and hate" is a very dangerous one.
mpyne 13y ago
> If his personal opinion* simply differs from what's popular in the community, then it's just that - different. More importantly IMHO, you could just as logically argue that any CEO who contributed to Republican campaigns is just as guilty as Eich for working to oppose gay marriage. Individual Republicans' opinions aside, the Republican Party is still running on an opposition platform as of April 2013 after all, and that party has done far more to hurt gay marriage rights than Prop. 8 by itself. Eich is being crucified because he's a viable target, not because of any innate guilt that he alone is imbued with. I find that quite hypocritical.
- untog 13y ago
  More importantly IMHO, you could just as logically argue that any CEO who contributed to Republican campaigns is just as guilty as Eich for working to oppose gay marriage Not really. I don't think there was a single Republican candidate that campaigned on the issue of gay marriage and nothing else. There is also a message of fiscal conservatism, pro-business stances, etc. etc. Donating money to Prop 8 was a simple and straightforward move to try to block gay marriage, and absolutely nothing else.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > I don't think there was a single Republican candidate that campaigned on the issue of gay marriage and nothing else. That would imply that it would be acceptable to associate with dirty anti-gay marriage types if they were otherwise politically useful, would it not? And if that's the case then I do not see how you could logically then "boycott Mozilla" as a consequence of Eich's appointment as CEO, since Mozilla actually does tons of good for people. > Donating money to Prop 8 was a simple and straightforward move to try to block gay marriage, and absolutely nothing else. Be that as it may, the vibe I'm getting from Eich's opponents is precisely that "you're either with us or against us". And moreover, that commingling good deeds with foul ones is no excuse. After all I would hope that it's only a very few that think "Mussolini made the trains run on time" was an excuse for all the rest. Given that we're tying Eich to a stake here he must have done something really bad, and if it's that bad it's the kind of thing you don't outweigh just by going "Well I also voted against Obamacare!". Again, no single political group has done more to oppress homosexuals from being able to marry than the GOP, however you dress it up. If opposing gay marriage is automatically a bad enough crime to warrant Eich's treatment then it should be bad enough irrespective of other, "nicer" opinions. After all, Eich himself surely has "good" opinions we'd mostly agree with, would he not? He may even be on the whole good for the community, but no one has accorded him the opportunity of a trial or even thought very hard about whether his "goods" outweigh his "bad".
jonny_eh 13y ago
When did supporting science to improve agriculture become conflated with supporting the NRA and anti-gay rights?
- jonah 13y ago
  I just picked the first couple controversial topics that came to mind. Not implying anything.
elicash 13y ago
What if he, instead, had donated to writing race-based discrimination into the state constitution? Not a rhetorical question. For some, including me, that's the fair comparison. Not gun laws or other types of legislation. If you don't think mine is the right comparison, that's fine, but if you're interested in understanding the other point of view as I assume you are, there it is.

by jonah 13y ago

dec0dedab0de 13y ago

What if he donated to the NRA or a pro-GMO campaign for example? Would there be similar uproar? No, because noone see those causes as being founded in fear and hate. EDIT: changed wording for clarity Also, to the downvoters Do you really think we would have heard about all this as much if it were related to other issues?

batmansbelt 13y ago
Well, the NRA is at least partially responsible for perpetuating an unhealthy gun culture in the USA that is responsible for thousands of deaths every year. There's plenty to fear and hate about that.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- cobrausn 13y ago
  I'll take the bait. The NRA is reacting to any mention of gun control from the left the same way the left reacts to any mention of abortion restrictions from the right - don't believe anything they say, because they are trying for victory by inches. And considering some of the rhetoric flying around, they probably should (both sides).
- angersock 13y ago
  Eh, they're no more responsible than the USDA is responsible for unhealthy food or the oil and gas lobby is for pollution or the AMA is for cartel behavior on the supply of doctors. (and in all of those cases, the death tolls are higher.) It's easy for people (especially certain middle-to-high income bracket liberal demographics) to give a pass on hating NRA/rednecks/religious folks while at the same time remaining indignant about what is an issue effecting a small subset of the population. Moreover, while there are very valid arguments to be made in support of gay rights (usually by way of personal liberty, freedom of association, privacy, etc.), you really need to be willing to apply them to folks you don't like.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dropit_sphere 13y ago
>No, because no one see those causes as being founded in fear and hate. There is a serious lack of empathy in the viewpoint the parent describes. The premise that "anyone who disagrees with x is motivated by fear and hate" is a very dangerous one.

mpyne 13y ago

> If his personal opinion* simply differs from what's popular in the community, then it's just that - different. More importantly IMHO, you could just as logically argue that any CEO who contributed to Republican campaigns is just as guilty as Eich for working to oppose gay marriage. Individual Republicans' opinions aside, the Republican Party is still running on an opposition platform as of April 2013 after all, and that party has done far more to hurt gay marriage rights than Prop. 8 by itself. Eich is being crucified because he's a viable target, not because of any innate guilt that he alone is imbued with. I find that quite hypocritical.

untog 13y ago
More importantly IMHO, you could just as logically argue that any CEO who contributed to Republican campaigns is just as guilty as Eich for working to oppose gay marriage Not really. I don't think there was a single Republican candidate that campaigned on the issue of gay marriage and nothing else. There is also a message of fiscal conservatism, pro-business stances, etc. etc. Donating money to Prop 8 was a simple and straightforward move to try to block gay marriage, and absolutely nothing else.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > I don't think there was a single Republican candidate that campaigned on the issue of gay marriage and nothing else. That would imply that it would be acceptable to associate with dirty anti-gay marriage types if they were otherwise politically useful, would it not? And if that's the case then I do not see how you could logically then "boycott Mozilla" as a consequence of Eich's appointment as CEO, since Mozilla actually does tons of good for people. > Donating money to Prop 8 was a simple and straightforward move to try to block gay marriage, and absolutely nothing else. Be that as it may, the vibe I'm getting from Eich's opponents is precisely that "you're either with us or against us". And moreover, that commingling good deeds with foul ones is no excuse. After all I would hope that it's only a very few that think "Mussolini made the trains run on time" was an excuse for all the rest. Given that we're tying Eich to a stake here he must have done something really bad, and if it's that bad it's the kind of thing you don't outweigh just by going "Well I also voted against Obamacare!". Again, no single political group has done more to oppress homosexuals from being able to marry than the GOP, however you dress it up. If opposing gay marriage is automatically a bad enough crime to warrant Eich's treatment then it should be bad enough irrespective of other, "nicer" opinions. After all, Eich himself surely has "good" opinions we'd mostly agree with, would he not? He may even be on the whole good for the community, but no one has accorded him the opportunity of a trial or even thought very hard about whether his "goods" outweigh his "bad".

jonny_eh 13y ago

When did supporting science to improve agriculture become conflated with supporting the NRA and anti-gay rights?

jonah 13y ago
I just picked the first couple controversial topics that came to mind. Not implying anything.

elicash 13y ago

What if he, instead, had donated to writing race-based discrimination into the state constitution? Not a rhetorical question. For some, including me, that's the fair comparison. Not gun laws or other types of legislation. If you don't think mine is the right comparison, that's fine, but if you're interested in understanding the other point of view as I assume you are, there it is.