4 ms·

I am all for gay marriage and I have a deep dislike of homophobia. But I am concerned about some of the reactions to Mozilla because of Brendan Eich's position.

I am all for gay marriage and I have a deep dislike of homophobia. But I am concerned about some of the reactions to Mozilla because of Brendan Eich's position. I totally disagree with him but surely he is entitled to have his view and to donate accordingly. He was donating as a private person not as a representative of Mozilla. Furthermore, there is nothing about Mozilla as an organization that particularly 'stands for' gay rights. It is not as if he is working for a gay rights group and then donating to oppose the group he is working for. This smacks of the thought police to me.

devilshaircut 13y ago
How does this "smack of the thought police"? OKCupid is not a government organization. At worst, they are expressing their own political belief. If you are considering the situation outside of the context of OKCupid, then I do not understand the relevance of the comment. And outside of the context of OKCupid, again, no authority is 'policing' Eich's thoughts. He donated money and this is information which is known publicly; there is no reason that he should be immune from critique. Given that he has offered several thousand dollars in support of legislative measures which would seek to actively discriminate against citizens, his employees among them, I believe that any and all scrutiny is necessary.
- meddlepal 13y ago
  The term "thought-police" does not necessarily have a government connotation. This whole situation reeks of some splinter group of gay-rights activists attempting to take out a high-profile target because he has a different opinion on marriage than they do. They are attempting to guide people's opinions by showing them what happens if you decide to go against them. Quite frankly, I think it is morally disgusting and it weakens there cause ultimately. Mr. Eich's personal politics are none of our business unless he starts allowing those politics to influence Mozilla... which until that occurs I see do not see a reason to criticize him.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The term "thought-police" does not necessarily have a government connotation. Only if you rob it of all substance does it not necessarily imply an oppressive government.
    - nilkn 13y ago
      I think the notion of thought-police posited by meddlepal is just as scary as that of an oppressive government. Governments, at least, can be overthrown.
      - devilshaircut 13y ago
        And private individuals or organizations cannot? The flaw of logic is obvious.
        nilkn 13y ago
        I don't really know what you're trying to say. I'm not talking about one person or one organization.
        devilshaircut 13y ago
        From the poster who suggested the use of the term "thought police": > "The term 'thought-police' does not necessarily have a government connotation." If it is not government, then the party under discussion therefore must be a private individual or organization. I don't understand how this is anything like the commonly accepted understanding of "thought police". It is simply one private party critiquing the behavior (in this case, a monetary donation to support certain legislation) of another private party. It is an inherent double standard. Also: if Eich, rather than fund legislation which discriminates against gays, funded legislation that discriminated against, for example, black people, would you be confident that black people who worked for Mozilla would be working in a fair environment? Would another private organization, like OKCupid, be justified in questioning such an individual? If this is to be branded the "thought police" then I worry about freedom of expression and our cultural mores, in general.

devilshaircut 13y ago

How does this "smack of the thought police"? OKCupid is not a government organization. At worst, they are expressing their own political belief. If you are considering the situation outside of the context of OKCupid, then I do not understand the relevance of the comment. And outside of the context of OKCupid, again, no authority is 'policing' Eich's thoughts. He donated money and this is information which is known publicly; there is no reason that he should be immune from critique. Given that he has offered several thousand dollars in support of legislative measures which would seek to actively discriminate against citizens, his employees among them, I believe that any and all scrutiny is necessary.

meddlepal 13y ago
The term "thought-police" does not necessarily have a government connotation. This whole situation reeks of some splinter group of gay-rights activists attempting to take out a high-profile target because he has a different opinion on marriage than they do. They are attempting to guide people's opinions by showing them what happens if you decide to go against them. Quite frankly, I think it is morally disgusting and it weakens there cause ultimately. Mr. Eich's personal politics are none of our business unless he starts allowing those politics to influence Mozilla... which until that occurs I see do not see a reason to criticize him.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The term "thought-police" does not necessarily have a government connotation. Only if you rob it of all substance does it not necessarily imply an oppressive government.
  - nilkn 13y ago
    I think the notion of thought-police posited by meddlepal is just as scary as that of an oppressive government. Governments, at least, can be overthrown.
    - devilshaircut 13y ago
      And private individuals or organizations cannot? The flaw of logic is obvious.
      - nilkn 13y ago
        I don't really know what you're trying to say. I'm not talking about one person or one organization.
        devilshaircut 13y ago
        From the poster who suggested the use of the term "thought police": > "The term 'thought-police' does not necessarily have a government connotation." If it is not government, then the party under discussion therefore must be a private individual or organization. I don't understand how this is anything like the commonly accepted understanding of "thought police". It is simply one private party critiquing the behavior (in this case, a monetary donation to support certain legislation) of another private party. It is an inherent double standard. Also: if Eich, rather than fund legislation which discriminates against gays, funded legislation that discriminated against, for example, black people, would you be confident that black people who worked for Mozilla would be working in a fair environment? Would another private organization, like OKCupid, be justified in questioning such an individual? If this is to be branded the "thought police" then I worry about freedom of expression and our cultural mores, in general.