4 ms·

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 othe

by 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".
- byuu 13y ago
  > Well, Indonesians do too. Do they, as a society have that right? They have a right to their opinions and personal beliefs. They do not have a moral right to enforce discrimination against consenting adults that are doing no harm to others. They enforce their position through the force of state, like Iran does when they execute their gays, but that does not make it right. I'd rather our government wasn't in the business of granting special rights to couples that decide to cohabitate. But since they are, I expect it to be equally available to all couples, regardless of their sexual orientation. > How about things that other societies have abolished already, like the death penalty or the world's biggest incarceration rate (predominantly on blacks)? I'm against both of those things as well. I'm also against the drug war, the massive income inequality gap, software patents, trade law that is allowed when it benefits corporations (outsourcing) and artificially restricted (via DMCA) when it doesn't (importing and region coding), and many, many other things. I personally feel more strongly about the rights of same-sex couples to marry than I do about not executing a convicted murderer (especially once you adjust for how many are affected by each issue), but I would certainly consider it a negative if Eich were to come out in support of capital punishment. I think a whole lot more people would be upset if Eich donated to maintaining the disproportionate incarceration rate in place on African Americans. ... Does everything have to devolve into slippery slopes? Taking away marriage rights from same-sex couples is fundamentally and unequivocally wrong. Eich is legally allowed to discriminate against them through law, for now. Just as we are legally allowed to protest his appointment to CEO of Mozilla.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >I personally feel more strongly about the rights of same-sex couples to marry than I do about not executing a convicted murderer (especially once you adjust for how many are affected by each issue) "How many are affected"? How about "how MUCH they are affected"? And what about those waiting in death row (or executed) only to be found innocent later (including those not so lucky to have a re-trial or a dedicated defense team): http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the_Death_Penalty.php http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the... A CEO could say "support our troops" and donate to that (which leads to tens or hundrends of thousands of deaths, invansions etc), and noone bats an eyes. But another is against gay marriage and everybody loses their minds. >Does everything have to devolve into slippery slopes? A slippery slope would be "if you do X, X*N will happen". I didn't say anything like that. What I said is: there are tons of controversial issues -- from gay marriage, to the death penalty, to incarceration rates, to gun control, to supportig wars etc. If you are against people for only one of those causes, while letting others with different opinions on other causes alone, then you are actually discriminating against them. If you want to be consistent you can't just "prosecute" CEOs who backed a bill against gay marriage. Except if you think, and I cannot even fathom how one would, that that's the definining issue and everything else is secondary.
sanxiyn 13y ago
I got the impression Eich doesn't appreciate "public face of the company" angle at all. I have no doubt Linus Torvalds will accept (and have accepted) patches from "straight", LGBT, anti-LGBT, white, black, white supremacist, capitalist, communist, anti-communist, 9/11 truther, birther, etc. as long as patches are technically sound. Similarly, it seems Eich thinks (and I agree) Mozilla should accept patches from bigots. It does not mean Mozilla should elect a bigot as CEO, but I can imagine how such distinction can be lost on someone.

by byuu 13y ago

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".
byuu 13y ago
> Well, Indonesians do too. Do they, as a society have that right? They have a right to their opinions and personal beliefs. They do not have a moral right to enforce discrimination against consenting adults that are doing no harm to others. They enforce their position through the force of state, like Iran does when they execute their gays, but that does not make it right. I'd rather our government wasn't in the business of granting special rights to couples that decide to cohabitate. But since they are, I expect it to be equally available to all couples, regardless of their sexual orientation. > How about things that other societies have abolished already, like the death penalty or the world's biggest incarceration rate (predominantly on blacks)? I'm against both of those things as well. I'm also against the drug war, the massive income inequality gap, software patents, trade law that is allowed when it benefits corporations (outsourcing) and artificially restricted (via DMCA) when it doesn't (importing and region coding), and many, many other things. I personally feel more strongly about the rights of same-sex couples to marry than I do about not executing a convicted murderer (especially once you adjust for how many are affected by each issue), but I would certainly consider it a negative if Eich were to come out in support of capital punishment. I think a whole lot more people would be upset if Eich donated to maintaining the disproportionate incarceration rate in place on African Americans. ... Does everything have to devolve into slippery slopes? Taking away marriage rights from same-sex couples is fundamentally and unequivocally wrong. Eich is legally allowed to discriminate against them through law, for now. Just as we are legally allowed to protest his appointment to CEO of Mozilla.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >I personally feel more strongly about the rights of same-sex couples to marry than I do about not executing a convicted murderer (especially once you adjust for how many are affected by each issue) "How many are affected"? How about "how MUCH they are affected"? And what about those waiting in death row (or executed) only to be found innocent later (including those not so lucky to have a re-trial or a dedicated defense team): http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the_Death_Penalty.php http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the... A CEO could say "support our troops" and donate to that (which leads to tens or hundrends of thousands of deaths, invansions etc), and noone bats an eyes. But another is against gay marriage and everybody loses their minds. >Does everything have to devolve into slippery slopes? A slippery slope would be "if you do X, X*N will happen". I didn't say anything like that. What I said is: there are tons of controversial issues -- from gay marriage, to the death penalty, to incarceration rates, to gun control, to supportig wars etc. If you are against people for only one of those causes, while letting others with different opinions on other causes alone, then you are actually discriminating against them. If you want to be consistent you can't just "prosecute" CEOs who backed a bill against gay marriage. Except if you think, and I cannot even fathom how one would, that that's the definining issue and everything else is secondary.

sanxiyn 13y ago

I got the impression Eich doesn't appreciate "public face of the company" angle at all. I have no doubt Linus Torvalds will accept (and have accepted) patches from "straight", LGBT, anti-LGBT, white, black, white supremacist, capitalist, communist, anti-communist, 9/11 truther, birther, etc. as long as patches are technically sound. Similarly, it seems Eich thinks (and I agree) Mozilla should accept patches from bigots. It does not mean Mozilla should elect a bigot as CEO, but I can imagine how such distinction can be lost on someone.