5 ms·

"If you had the opportunity to donate to a Proposition 8 cause today, would you do so?" "I hadn't thought about that. It seems that's a dead issue. I don't wan

"If you had the opportunity to donate to a Proposition 8 cause today, would you do so?" "I hadn't thought about that. It seems that's a dead issue. I don't want to answer hypotheticals." I think that response speaks for itself. While I don't feel comfortable lynching someone based on contextually irrelevant beliefs, most of us see gay rights as an issue principally comparable to issues of slavery and suffrage. It's the denying of rights to "other people" for dubious reasons. Hypothetically, if the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully?

pfortuny 13y ago
"Most of us" may be a bit of an overstatement, despite what the polls say (because the polls did not ask whether people saw it as comparable to slavery and suffrage). It may seem I am cherry-picking your words, but as you are taking a stance based on his words, I think we are entitled to do the same with yours.
- sjwright 13y ago
  I meant "most of us" within the context of a reasonably intelligent tech community like Hacker News. I accept that this is an assumption, but I stand by it.
  - pfortuny 13y ago
    Yep, I meant 'most of us' within the same context, an intelligent tech community like Hacker News and I stand by it as well. Hence? In the era of big data I am forced to say that you really need to back that assumption.
    - sjwright 13y ago
      I don't have any objective data. It is an inference gleaned from the balance of reactions towards the issue. I admit it is plausible that many people holding the opposing view may choose to remain silent, however I contend that speaks to their ability to defend their stance intellectually. (The most compelling argument I've heard against gay marriage is "Eew." Colour me unimpressed.)
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Is Brendan Eich not "reasonably intelligent"? Or do you self pick based on your own filter to match your prejudice?
    - corin_ 13y ago
      He still said "most" within the sub-group of reasonably intelligent people, not "all". You may disagree with that claim, but one person not fitting into "most" means nothing.
      - coldtea 13y ago
        Well, "most" intelligent people in 1800's South were pro slavery. So?
        sjwright 13y ago
        Hardly. Many of those intelligent people were slaves.
        corin_ 13y ago
        As I said, you may disagree with the claim. I wasn't even personally supporting the claim in that comment, merely pointing out that it's possible for a.) the claim to be true and b.) Eich is intelligent - they aren't mutually exclusive based on his claim.
    - sjwright 13y ago
      Brendan Eich is very intelligent. He just happens to be wrong on this issue, in my opinion. I self pick based on my own assessment of intellectual honesty and rigor. I have no doubt that our society will be considered similarly unenlightened a hundred years from now -- all we can hope for is some sympathy points for integrity and progress.
coldtea 13y ago
>While I don't feel comfortable lynching someone based on contextually irrelevant beliefs, most of us see gay rights as an issue principally comparable to issues of slavery and suffrage. It's the denying of rights to "other people" for dubious reasons. Only "being free" and "choosing your government" is a right, whereas mariage is a made-up custom, and as such it has historical connections to certain morals and can also be seen as a religious related practice for some. >If the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully? If states still had slavery (in the same way states prohibit gay marriage), then yes, we would. Far from being a solved issue, it was something put on vote. If it's one vote, then it's undemocratic to demonize one side of the ballot. Furthermore, if you're so fired up about civil issues, how about a few that are important to me: the death penalty and gun control. Should a CEO be fired for being pro/against those? How come a gay man's right to marriage (an antiquated institution if I ever saw one, and a kitchy fair with tons of made up customs for straight and gay men alike) is more important than a 15 year old kids right not to be institutionally murdered in TX, or some other state? Seems to me some issues have better marketing, and people just go with the flock to the acceptable crusades, and if they have to lynch one or two that are against the flow in the process, so be it.
- corin_ 13y ago
  (I'm not one of the people who has downvoted you.) My personal feeling - speaking as a gay man and therefore somewhat personally linked, but also as somebody who has not once suffered bullying or mistreatment because of it - is that there are two crucial reasons gay marriage should be legalised, and neither are to do with "made up customs". Firstly the legal side: inheritance law, hospital visitation rights, insurance, etc. etc. Secondly, the impact it has on how people view homosexuality. A step towards equality is a step towards not seeing gay kids bullied, gay teens killing themselves, gay adults being harassed in the work place, etc. And that's a huge deal in my opinion.
  - tomp 13y ago
    I think both of your points are important, but in an ideal world, I would go in a slightly different direction, and a bit further. First, I think that marriage is actually two distinct concepts - religious and legal. Since marriage was originally defined by religion, I don't see a problem if religion retains the right of defining marriage - a union between a man and a woman. Legally, however, gay marriage doesn't solve all the problems. Ideally, "civil unions", granting all the rights above, would be allowed between any number of mutually-consensual partners - e.g. Mormon polygamy, Hippy communes, ... This would also bring additional recognition and acceptance to these people.
joelrunyon 13y ago
Slavery had economical consequences that aren't present in the current debate. Slaves weren't just being denied rights, but they were being exploited for a profit. Visitation rights, marriage & tax benefits are relevant concerns in this debate but comparing it to slavery really glosses over how terrible slavery actually was.
- byuu 13y ago
  I see it as the painfully slow march of human progress. Genocide was worse than slavery, which was worse than internment, which was worse than misogyny, which was worse than segregation, which was worse than anti-miscegenation, which was worse than marriage inequality (as you could be jailed for it in certain states.) Marriage inequality is certainly not as bad as slavery, but it is definitely the prevailing major civil rights issue of our time, at least in the US. And once it's resolved, there will be a new rights issue that commands a majority of interest: whether that be transgender rights, immigrant rights, or something else. To say that other things were worse, and diminish the importance of current issues, is to diminish the great march of progress we are currently enjoying.
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    I'm not that things were worse & this isn't important. That's not what the parent commenter said or what I was refuting. He compared it directly to slavery & that comparison / analogy is a poor one.
- sjwright 13y ago
  I did not mean to imply that the issues were of equal consequence, only that they are issues of the same type.
- headShrinker 13y ago
  As you said, The money was a major motivating factor in the slave trade, and it is not in the marriage equality battle. The money is not a motivating factor in preventing marriage equality. The shared major motivating factor is arguable, 'hate'. There aren't huge plantations at stake, make no mistake there is big money involved. Social security, inheritance, and real-estate are just a few of the issues making sure gays are leaving billions on the table. Ultimately, the currently enforced laws favor the majority; straight people. Marriage equality is sub issue of a massive human rights epidemic which we aren't directly addressing in this thread. The current CEO actively supports organizations which make the epidemic all the more dire for people in many areas of the world. While gays in the US enjoy relative freedom, it is illegal and punishable by death to be gay in 15 countries, and just illegal with life sentence in a dozen more. During every major recent genocide, gays where almost always highly targeted for killing in the most heinous ways; just to name a few; during US slavery, WW II, and African Apartheid. Just as slavery continues around the world, so does the merciless torture and killing of gays. While we can pull a segment of American history and say with impunity, 'definitely more blacks died in miserable conditions with horrible treatment and torture', gays have had a worldwide and human history long story that nearly matches the brutality, just not the shear numbers. While our politicians argue about where gay wedding can take place, this is just one of the final chapters in a very long story about a fight just to exist. To characterize this issue as just a visitation rights, marriage and tax benefits issue, as you say, 'really glosses over how terrible [homophobia through out history] actually was.'
byuu 13y ago
This really sums it up in my book: "We have a strong Indonesian community. We're developing Firefox OS to go into market there. I have people there on the other side of this particular issue." He clearly still sees this as just being two sides of a coin, like a choice between Pepsi or Coke. It's tolerable when you have a sincere personal belief ... however misguided it may be, but it's quite another when you donate money and vote to take away someone else's rights to their own beliefs, actions, equality and dignity through the force of law. What I hate most about this whole situation is that the only action I can take is to step away from all Mozilla products, which in turn hurts all Mozilla employees, the majority of which I fully respect and support. But as CEO, he's the public face and voice of the entire company, and I can't respectfully support a company that would elect a bigot to lead their entire organization.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >He clearly still sees this as just being two sides of a coin, like a choice between Pepsi or Coke. Well, Indonesians do too. Do they, as a society have that right? Or perhaps only what the US decides is a right should be enforced? How about things that other societies have abolished already, like the death penalty or the world's biggest incarceration rate (predominantly on blacks)?
  - hamax 13y ago
    > Do they, as a society have that right? I'm not really sure which right, but probably no. > How about things that other societies have abolished already, like the death penalty or the world's biggest incarceration rate (predominantly on blacks)? Yes, let's play oppression olympics.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >I'm not really sure which right, but probably no. To decide how they want their society shaped, including what rights they grant to whatever minority. Apparently some people in other countries think they should run other people's countries for them and bring them their democracy and their moral code. As if they weren't one of the last countries to abolish slavery, or enforce Jim Crow laws that continue (masked) until this day. Or as if they didn't consider homosexuality mental illness until a few decades ago. It seems that whatever some countries have decided for themselves (no matter how late they are to the party) should be enforced to everybody else. As for other stuff, which they are still backwards (e.g the death penalty, lack of gun control, stand your ground laws etc) those are OK, since they are doing it. >Yes, let's play oppression olympics Better than playing: "whatever I decide is OK, is OK, everybody else must follow my lead. Oh, and I get to do whatever I want myself".
jbarham 13y ago
Conflation of Proposition 8 with racism/slavery is a bit rich considering that black Americans disproportionally voted for Proposition 8. But I suppose it's useful to drag out the racism comparison to demonize Brendan Eich, although you don't want to stretch the metaphor too far since it might make people wonder how "inclusive" the American technology industry is of black people, "old" people (i.e., older than 35) etc.
- sjwright 13y ago
  > is a bit rich considering that black Americans There are many ironies to be found and enough hypocrisy to go around, but none constitute a compelling counterargument.
tragic 13y ago
> Hypothetically, if the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully? Well, knowing what we know about working conditions at FoxConn and so forth, I don't see huge amounts of developers boycotting iOS. Which, if anything, is a far more serious issue than this. I mean, does anybody seriously expect - under the Eich regime - Mozilla itself to start advocating against gay marriage? Are new versions of Firefox going to block gay-interest websites? The notion is patently ludicrous - to my knowledge, Eich has never even vocalised his opposition to gay marriage. That $1,000 donation was unknown for four years. Since then, we have had these rather gnomic, evasive statements (which, I agree, means he still holds those opinions). And $1,000 is a bit stingy - a brief glance at the relevant records[0] reveals several six-figure donations. I'm a card-carrying leftie pinko, I believe that people should be able to shag/date/marry whomever they wish regardless of their genital plumbing, and I despise things like Prop 8. If Brendan Eich still holds these opinions, I'm happy to call him a bigot. But let's get a grip. Prop 8 didn't pass because some hacker donated a grand to the campaign. It passed because a lot of people share those opinions, and because there are - unfortunately - far more vocal and better organised advocates for them. Until someone can demonstrate that Eich will have a demonstrably more pernicious effect on the struggle for gay equality now that he has a more prominent c-level job title at Mozilla than last month, I'm going to call this a storm in a teacup - a distraction from the fight for LGBT equality in fact, a symptom of the social media world's tendency to reduce politics to hounding celebrities for one reason or another. [0] http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1303282&view=received&psort=AMOUNT&session=2007 http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx...
- sjwright 13y ago
  > Well, knowing what we know about working conditions at FoxConn and so forth, I don't see huge amounts of developers boycotting iOS. As if every other phone on the market are made by affluent white English-speaking college graduates. Oh, and remember that FoxConn make other things too -- for example, the PS3, PS4, 360, XBone, Wii and WiiU. We'll have to boycott those platforms too.
  - 13y ago
vixen99 13y ago
You sound like Basil Fawlty comparing Fascist Germany to his hotel guests. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFMpySg_UrM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFMpySg_UrM and your comment invites the same response. There are plenty of gays who argue against gay marriage and a vociferous number who are for it. It's called debate. Some against argue that gay marriage is homophobic. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/same-sex-marriage-is-homophobic/ http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/same-sex-ma... (Might be paywalled but the arguments can be found elsewhere on the web - though I would not expect you to search for them.) "We have profound reservations about same sex marriage not just because of the harm it does to a vital heterosexual institution but also because we reject the implication that in order to be equal and respected homosexuals should conform to heterosexual norms and be in effect the same as heterosexuals. In this sense we believe same sex marriage to be homophobic – it demands recognition for gay relationships but at the price of submitting those relationships to heterosexual definition. This serves neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals."
- bermanoid 13y ago
  The fact that a few gay people support something doesn't make it any less offensive, homophobic, or idiotic.
zwdr 13y ago
>Hypothetically, if the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully? First, I would ask if that interest influences his job. If that's not the case, it doesn't concern the broad public. At the very least not in combination with his status as CEO. And that's it. Everything further is a witch hunt. >While I don't feel comfortable lynching someone based on contextually irrelevant beliefs You say the words but somehow you manage to do the exact opposite. In his blog (https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/) he writes >I intend to demonstrate with meaningful action my commitment to a Mozilla that lives up to its ideals, including that of being an open and inclusive community. I believe that, until proven wrong. So how about judging him by his actions as a CEO? Instead of a private donation? IMO its the only correct thing. That was point one. The second one I want to make is about elephants and blind people. Elephants are big– so big that blind people are only able to perceive a part of them. So they all disagree about what the elephant is. And gay marriage is an elephant and opinions are elephant parts. I doubt this elephant has just two parts labelled "Equality For Everyone" and "Hate And Bigotry". Please don't make the error of boiling down a complex issue to two sides.
- zimpenfish 13y ago
  What's complex about allowing gay marriage? Sure, you've got some tax law wording to fiddle with, maybe, and the definition of "partner" probably needs changing in a few ordinances but how is it complex? Even the UK (and we're pretty useless most of the time) has managed to allow it with civilisation collapsing.
  - zwdr 13y ago
    The complex part is that a lot of people have a lot of different opinions on it. Now I don't know most of them, because I have no personal interest in it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage has a few...), but dismissing every argument made against same-sex-marriage in one broad swipe is refusing to take every other point of view into consideration.
daveqr 13y ago
If you think gay marriage is comparable to slavery, you have no sense of proportion.

pfortuny 13y ago

"Most of us" may be a bit of an overstatement, despite what the polls say (because the polls did not ask whether people saw it as comparable to slavery and suffrage). It may seem I am cherry-picking your words, but as you are taking a stance based on his words, I think we are entitled to do the same with yours.

sjwright 13y ago
I meant "most of us" within the context of a reasonably intelligent tech community like Hacker News. I accept that this is an assumption, but I stand by it.
- pfortuny 13y ago
  Yep, I meant 'most of us' within the same context, an intelligent tech community like Hacker News and I stand by it as well. Hence? In the era of big data I am forced to say that you really need to back that assumption.
  - sjwright 13y ago
    I don't have any objective data. It is an inference gleaned from the balance of reactions towards the issue. I admit it is plausible that many people holding the opposing view may choose to remain silent, however I contend that speaks to their ability to defend their stance intellectually. (The most compelling argument I've heard against gay marriage is "Eew." Colour me unimpressed.)
- coldtea 13y ago
  Is Brendan Eich not "reasonably intelligent"? Or do you self pick based on your own filter to match your prejudice?
  - corin_ 13y ago
    He still said "most" within the sub-group of reasonably intelligent people, not "all". You may disagree with that claim, but one person not fitting into "most" means nothing.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      Well, "most" intelligent people in 1800's South were pro slavery. So?
      - sjwright 13y ago
        Hardly. Many of those intelligent people were slaves.
      - corin_ 13y ago
        As I said, you may disagree with the claim. I wasn't even personally supporting the claim in that comment, merely pointing out that it's possible for a.) the claim to be true and b.) Eich is intelligent - they aren't mutually exclusive based on his claim.
  - sjwright 13y ago
    Brendan Eich is very intelligent. He just happens to be wrong on this issue, in my opinion. I self pick based on my own assessment of intellectual honesty and rigor. I have no doubt that our society will be considered similarly unenlightened a hundred years from now -- all we can hope for is some sympathy points for integrity and progress.

coldtea 13y ago

>While I don't feel comfortable lynching someone based on contextually irrelevant beliefs, most of us see gay rights as an issue principally comparable to issues of slavery and suffrage. It's the denying of rights to "other people" for dubious reasons. Only "being free" and "choosing your government" is a right, whereas mariage is a made-up custom, and as such it has historical connections to certain morals and can also be seen as a religious related practice for some. >If the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully? If states still had slavery (in the same way states prohibit gay marriage), then yes, we would. Far from being a solved issue, it was something put on vote. If it's one vote, then it's undemocratic to demonize one side of the ballot. Furthermore, if you're so fired up about civil issues, how about a few that are important to me: the death penalty and gun control. Should a CEO be fired for being pro/against those? How come a gay man's right to marriage (an antiquated institution if I ever saw one, and a kitchy fair with tons of made up customs for straight and gay men alike) is more important than a 15 year old kids right not to be institutionally murdered in TX, or some other state? Seems to me some issues have better marketing, and people just go with the flock to the acceptable crusades, and if they have to lynch one or two that are against the flow in the process, so be it.

corin_ 13y ago
(I'm not one of the people who has downvoted you.) My personal feeling - speaking as a gay man and therefore somewhat personally linked, but also as somebody who has not once suffered bullying or mistreatment because of it - is that there are two crucial reasons gay marriage should be legalised, and neither are to do with "made up customs". Firstly the legal side: inheritance law, hospital visitation rights, insurance, etc. etc. Secondly, the impact it has on how people view homosexuality. A step towards equality is a step towards not seeing gay kids bullied, gay teens killing themselves, gay adults being harassed in the work place, etc. And that's a huge deal in my opinion.
- tomp 13y ago
  I think both of your points are important, but in an ideal world, I would go in a slightly different direction, and a bit further. First, I think that marriage is actually two distinct concepts - religious and legal. Since marriage was originally defined by religion, I don't see a problem if religion retains the right of defining marriage - a union between a man and a woman. Legally, however, gay marriage doesn't solve all the problems. Ideally, "civil unions", granting all the rights above, would be allowed between any number of mutually-consensual partners - e.g. Mormon polygamy, Hippy communes, ... This would also bring additional recognition and acceptance to these people.

joelrunyon 13y ago

Slavery had economical consequences that aren't present in the current debate. Slaves weren't just being denied rights, but they were being exploited for a profit. Visitation rights, marriage & tax benefits are relevant concerns in this debate but comparing it to slavery really glosses over how terrible slavery actually was.

byuu 13y ago
I see it as the painfully slow march of human progress. Genocide was worse than slavery, which was worse than internment, which was worse than misogyny, which was worse than segregation, which was worse than anti-miscegenation, which was worse than marriage inequality (as you could be jailed for it in certain states.) Marriage inequality is certainly not as bad as slavery, but it is definitely the prevailing major civil rights issue of our time, at least in the US. And once it's resolved, there will be a new rights issue that commands a majority of interest: whether that be transgender rights, immigrant rights, or something else. To say that other things were worse, and diminish the importance of current issues, is to diminish the great march of progress we are currently enjoying.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  I'm not that things were worse & this isn't important. That's not what the parent commenter said or what I was refuting. He compared it directly to slavery & that comparison / analogy is a poor one.
sjwright 13y ago
I did not mean to imply that the issues were of equal consequence, only that they are issues of the same type.
headShrinker 13y ago
As you said, The money was a major motivating factor in the slave trade, and it is not in the marriage equality battle. The money is not a motivating factor in preventing marriage equality. The shared major motivating factor is arguable, 'hate'. There aren't huge plantations at stake, make no mistake there is big money involved. Social security, inheritance, and real-estate are just a few of the issues making sure gays are leaving billions on the table. Ultimately, the currently enforced laws favor the majority; straight people. Marriage equality is sub issue of a massive human rights epidemic which we aren't directly addressing in this thread. The current CEO actively supports organizations which make the epidemic all the more dire for people in many areas of the world. While gays in the US enjoy relative freedom, it is illegal and punishable by death to be gay in 15 countries, and just illegal with life sentence in a dozen more. During every major recent genocide, gays where almost always highly targeted for killing in the most heinous ways; just to name a few; during US slavery, WW II, and African Apartheid. Just as slavery continues around the world, so does the merciless torture and killing of gays. While we can pull a segment of American history and say with impunity, 'definitely more blacks died in miserable conditions with horrible treatment and torture', gays have had a worldwide and human history long story that nearly matches the brutality, just not the shear numbers. While our politicians argue about where gay wedding can take place, this is just one of the final chapters in a very long story about a fight just to exist. To characterize this issue as just a visitation rights, marriage and tax benefits issue, as you say, 'really glosses over how terrible [homophobia through out history] actually was.'

byuu 13y ago

This really sums it up in my book: "We have a strong Indonesian community. We're developing Firefox OS to go into market there. I have people there on the other side of this particular issue." He clearly still sees this as just being two sides of a coin, like a choice between Pepsi or Coke. It's tolerable when you have a sincere personal belief ... however misguided it may be, but it's quite another when you donate money and vote to take away someone else's rights to their own beliefs, actions, equality and dignity through the force of law. What I hate most about this whole situation is that the only action I can take is to step away from all Mozilla products, which in turn hurts all Mozilla employees, the majority of which I fully respect and support. But as CEO, he's the public face and voice of the entire company, and I can't respectfully support a company that would elect a bigot to lead their entire organization.

coldtea 13y ago
>He clearly still sees this as just being two sides of a coin, like a choice between Pepsi or Coke. Well, Indonesians do too. Do they, as a society have that right? Or perhaps only what the US decides is a right should be enforced? How about things that other societies have abolished already, like the death penalty or the world's biggest incarceration rate (predominantly on blacks)?
- hamax 13y ago
  > Do they, as a society have that right? I'm not really sure which right, but probably no. > How about things that other societies have abolished already, like the death penalty or the world's biggest incarceration rate (predominantly on blacks)? Yes, let's play oppression olympics.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >I'm not really sure which right, but probably no. To decide how they want their society shaped, including what rights they grant to whatever minority. Apparently some people in other countries think they should run other people's countries for them and bring them their democracy and their moral code. As if they weren't one of the last countries to abolish slavery, or enforce Jim Crow laws that continue (masked) until this day. Or as if they didn't consider homosexuality mental illness until a few decades ago. It seems that whatever some countries have decided for themselves (no matter how late they are to the party) should be enforced to everybody else. As for other stuff, which they are still backwards (e.g the death penalty, lack of gun control, stand your ground laws etc) those are OK, since they are doing it. >Yes, let's play oppression olympics Better than playing: "whatever I decide is OK, is OK, everybody else must follow my lead. Oh, and I get to do whatever I want myself".

jbarham 13y ago

Conflation of Proposition 8 with racism/slavery is a bit rich considering that black Americans disproportionally voted for Proposition 8. But I suppose it's useful to drag out the racism comparison to demonize Brendan Eich, although you don't want to stretch the metaphor too far since it might make people wonder how "inclusive" the American technology industry is of black people, "old" people (i.e., older than 35) etc.

sjwright 13y ago
> is a bit rich considering that black Americans There are many ironies to be found and enough hypocrisy to go around, but none constitute a compelling counterargument.

tragic 13y ago

> Hypothetically, if the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully? Well, knowing what we know about working conditions at FoxConn and so forth, I don't see huge amounts of developers boycotting iOS. Which, if anything, is a far more serious issue than this. I mean, does anybody seriously expect - under the Eich regime - Mozilla itself to start advocating against gay marriage? Are new versions of Firefox going to block gay-interest websites? The notion is patently ludicrous - to my knowledge, Eich has never even vocalised his opposition to gay marriage. That $1,000 donation was unknown for four years. Since then, we have had these rather gnomic, evasive statements (which, I agree, means he still holds those opinions). And $1,000 is a bit stingy - a brief glance at the relevant records[0] reveals several six-figure donations. I'm a card-carrying leftie pinko, I believe that people should be able to shag/date/marry whomever they wish regardless of their genital plumbing, and I despise things like Prop 8. If Brendan Eich still holds these opinions, I'm happy to call him a bigot. But let's get a grip. Prop 8 didn't pass because some hacker donated a grand to the campaign. It passed because a lot of people share those opinions, and because there are - unfortunately - far more vocal and better organised advocates for them. Until someone can demonstrate that Eich will have a demonstrably more pernicious effect on the struggle for gay equality now that he has a more prominent c-level job title at Mozilla than last month, I'm going to call this a storm in a teacup - a distraction from the fight for LGBT equality in fact, a symptom of the social media world's tendency to reduce politics to hounding celebrities for one reason or another. [0] http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1303282&view=received&psort=AMOUNT&session=2007 http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx...

sjwright 13y ago
> Well, knowing what we know about working conditions at FoxConn and so forth, I don't see huge amounts of developers boycotting iOS. As if every other phone on the market are made by affluent white English-speaking college graduates. Oh, and remember that FoxConn make other things too -- for example, the PS3, PS4, 360, XBone, Wii and WiiU. We'll have to boycott those platforms too.
- 13y ago

vixen99 13y ago

You sound like Basil Fawlty comparing Fascist Germany to his hotel guests. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFMpySg_UrM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFMpySg_UrM and your comment invites the same response. There are plenty of gays who argue against gay marriage and a vociferous number who are for it. It's called debate. Some against argue that gay marriage is homophobic. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/same-sex-marriage-is-homophobic/ http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/02/same-sex-ma... (Might be paywalled but the arguments can be found elsewhere on the web - though I would not expect you to search for them.) "We have profound reservations about same sex marriage not just because of the harm it does to a vital heterosexual institution but also because we reject the implication that in order to be equal and respected homosexuals should conform to heterosexual norms and be in effect the same as heterosexuals. In this sense we believe same sex marriage to be homophobic – it demands recognition for gay relationships but at the price of submitting those relationships to heterosexual definition. This serves neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals."

bermanoid 13y ago
The fact that a few gay people support something doesn't make it any less offensive, homophobic, or idiotic.

zwdr 13y ago

>Hypothetically, if the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully? First, I would ask if that interest influences his job. If that's not the case, it doesn't concern the broad public. At the very least not in combination with his status as CEO. And that's it. Everything further is a witch hunt. >While I don't feel comfortable lynching someone based on contextually irrelevant beliefs You say the words but somehow you manage to do the exact opposite. In his blog (https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/) he writes >I intend to demonstrate with meaningful action my commitment to a Mozilla that lives up to its ideals, including that of being an open and inclusive community. I believe that, until proven wrong. So how about judging him by his actions as a CEO? Instead of a private donation? IMO its the only correct thing. That was point one. The second one I want to make is about elephants and blind people. Elephants are big– so big that blind people are only able to perceive a part of them. So they all disagree about what the elephant is. And gay marriage is an elephant and opinions are elephant parts. I doubt this elephant has just two parts labelled "Equality For Everyone" and "Hate And Bigotry". Please don't make the error of boiling down a complex issue to two sides.

zimpenfish 13y ago
What's complex about allowing gay marriage? Sure, you've got some tax law wording to fiddle with, maybe, and the definition of "partner" probably needs changing in a few ordinances but how is it complex? Even the UK (and we're pretty useless most of the time) has managed to allow it with civilisation collapsing.
- zwdr 13y ago
  The complex part is that a lot of people have a lot of different opinions on it. Now I don't know most of them, because I have no personal interest in it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage has a few...), but dismissing every argument made against same-sex-marriage in one broad swipe is refusing to take every other point of view into consideration.

daveqr 13y ago

If you think gay marriage is comparable to slavery, you have no sense of proportion.