6 ms·

It annoys me to no end that people try to take the high ground of reasonableness by equating normal or even controversial personal political, social or religiou

It annoys me to no end that people try to take the high ground of reasonableness by equating normal or even controversial personal political, social or religious views with the extremist hate-mongering of racists, antisemites and homophobes. Eich's active support for the notion the gay people cannot have equal civil rights is well beyond just "controversial". OKCupid summed it up well as "those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration". Not every "controversial" view should be treated with equal respect. Vile, hateful and vicious views warrant shitstorms. There is a constant pattern in tech to sweep sexism, homophobia and racism under the rug as "just someones personal views".

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Pacabel 13y ago
Have you tried looking at this situation from a different viewpoint? The responses of many of those people who are against Eich in this case can best be described as "vile, hateful and vicious", to use your words. Their calls for him to lose his job, or for Mozilla as a whole to suffer boycotts, can be described as an effort to "enforce misery, shame and frustration". The problem here is that we have some people claiming to be against discrimination, yet they in turn have absolutely no problem engaging in such behavior toward Eich. I think that this sort of hypocrisy really undermines their cause, and most of them don't seem to realize this.
- patrickmay 13y ago
  Eich contributed financially to actively discriminate against people based on an attribute they cannot change, just like gender or race. Those of us "discriminating" against Eich are doing so based on his voluntary behavior. You are suggesting a false equivalence.
  - sehr 13y ago
    attribute they cannot change, just like gender or race Again, look at it from another point of view. There is a reason there are Christian 'conversion' camps, these people simply don't see it as being set in stone.
    - parasubvert 13y ago
      Sure, one could look at it from that point of view. And decide it was a vile, destructive view and to help those victimized by such a barbaric, anti-Christian (speaking as a lapsed Catholic!) notion. I can understand a point of view and even support one's freedom to practice it (by the government), but I also can do everything in my legal power to make sure those views are marginalized and the damage they inflict minimized. Which is no less than what anti-gay marriage folks have been doing. And losing the battle, I might add.
    - coldpie 13y ago
      Sure, and we could bleach skin or perform surgery to alter other characteristics of people. And yet, discrimination based on physical characteristics is illegal.
- parasubvert 13y ago
  This actually isn't that hard to understand. Discrimination is definitionally related to systematic prejudice. Their counter-reaction is neither systemic nor unwarranted (as prejudice is). One could argue that in this era of social change we should be more tolerant of anti-gay marriage folks, bigots, etc, as this is a generational divide that will pass. However would also could make an argument that when (a) you're a public figure as the CEO of a major nonprofit and (b) you've publicly stated and financially supported the potentially bigoted position, you will be the target of counter-attacks. So, no I don't shed a tear for Brendan Eich. If the first thing he did as Mozilla CEO was to hold a press conference to repudiate his prior actions no that he is a public figure and commit Mozilla to gay-friendliness (not "internal memo" stuff we've been hearing), there would have been no issue. The organization is largely identified with its leadership, and this drama is playing out like a host rejecting a donor organ - this isn't just outside opinion, Mozilla employees are speaking out! They are based in California, what did they expect?
  - gcp 13y ago
    They are based in California, what did they expect? Well, Prop 8 did pass, so...
    - parasubvert 13y ago
      Touché :-). But I meant the larger (more liberal) enclaves like the SF South Bay.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  The problem here is that we have some people claiming to be against discrimination, yet they in turn have absolutely no problem engaging in such behavior toward Eich. I make a simple claim: equality before the law, for all persons, is a necessary feature of a free society. Notice how this says nothing about "tolerance", "discrimination", "diversity", "inclusiveness" nor any of the other frankly pathetic attempts people have tried at the "you're just as bad" argument. The line is drawn at attempting to create a society in which not all persons are equal before the law. Proposition 8 crossed that line, and I feel free to condemn it and its supporters with all my strength.
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Maybe I'm just jaded, but I do not see "marriage" as synonymous with "love" in any way (and historically, it often hasn't been). It's a culturally significant ritual and definitely of high symbolic importance for a lot of people, but that's as far as I can say. "Vile, hateful and vicious" views would be doing something akin to what Pat Robertson does. The most you could say about Eich is that his views are objectionable, but they do not seem to be at any focal point of his ideology. The tactic of "social justice ad shitstorm" does not work in doing anything besides inflaming people's prejudices even more, raising other people's sense of moral superiority and giving a headache to anyone else who doesn't feel like viewing `Outrage Porn #{MAX_INT}`.
- bakhy 13y ago
  a) why is it that people suddenly realize that marriage is useless when gay marriage is debated? it's really off topic on this thread. b) "The tactic .. does not work" - this is just plain false. many important social changes were brought about through protesting against injustice.
  - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    a) In my case, I've held these views concerning the utility of marriage for a while. However, to answer your question, since gay marriage is still very much an unorthodox institution to many people, it likely provokes them to think outside of their usual boundaries on the topic of marriage in general. b) This is a very, very watered down form of "protesting against injustice". You're essentially attacking one person and trying to boycott the decades of seminal work by a non-profit foundation for free software over one morally objectionable act. One that he does not seem to bring into his workplace, and one that by the way, got ruled unconstitutional and overturned. It has no present effect on anyone. Of course, it is remarkably less difficult to do that, while still flying under the guise of a greater cause.
    - bakhy 13y ago
      a) who is "them"? :) don't get me wrong, i respect the anti-marriage attitude, it's a legitimate position. but it's not fair to bring it up when the topic is marriage equality. even if you're against marriage, i think you should support marriage equality - because, if marriage is here, it should at least be fair to all. the fact that you may be against marriage in general does not really matter as much on this particular topic. b) there is no imperative for Mozilla to have him as the CEO. however, when Mozilla places him as CEO and sticks to it, then it is a potential problem.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
Computers may have been invented out of intellectual curiosity, but they were produced for war. Now what? Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber -- just the glasses should be enough to tell you this man might be very evil, and he is indeed "the father of chemical warfare". But wait, he's also responsible for the discovery that allows huge numbers of people to live. Now what? Let's simply assume Brendan Eich is a very evil man, that prop 8 is just the tip of the iceberg. Well, but, Mozilla. Now what? How about this, if you propose to throw the baby out with the bath water, find us a new baby first? Let's use computation machines invented for love, let's use fertilizer invented by someone who had at least contact lenses, let's use browsers and languages made by catholic priests who secretly marry gay couples and get hunted all over the world by the pope for that. I'd be down with that... but first they need to exist. Until then, to let billions of people starve, or to give even more of the web up to Google and Apple, is not actually morally superior to the alternative of realizing that life is messy, humans doubly so, and we don't just owe a lot of what we take for granted to saints, but to the whole spectrum. > "those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration". That in itself is a rather vicious and dehumanizing view. It's awfully convenient to have people who are pure evil while you yourself are pure good -- it's also nonsense.
- bakhy 13y ago
  actually, Eich could just step down. problem solved. no need for all the drama, dude ;)
  - gcp 13y ago
    That's equal to admitting your career in a technological organization is strongly determined by whatever personal political views you hold.
    - bakhy 13y ago
      no, i'm just pointing out that there is no need to launch any kind of crusade against Mozilla, as the parent implied. it isn't such an XOR situation - either accept everything Eich does, or drop Mozilla altogether. i'm still using Mozilla. protesting him as the CEO does not imply abandoning or destroying Mozilla. JavaScript neither! and it's not really my career or your career, he's the CEO (!) of Mozilla. it is a company with a certain ideal behind it, and he has opened discussion on whether his past behavior is at odds with that. his defenders too often here take the position that there simply should not be such a discussion... personally, i do think it is a bit blown out of proportion. but it did offend me. particularly the claim that it is just his freedom of opinion and that Mozilla itself would crumble if he would change his opinion now (?!) and all that hiding behind Indonesian people, what's up with that? in any case, for me it is about me, and my life. it is not some abstract subject. it's not something i can just donate a little money to, and ignore it the rest of the time. it was people voting about my life (i'm from Croatia, but we had our referendum last year), and about a subject that will not concern their life or family at all.. i just must complain... because i don't want to use Chrome :)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Pacabel 13y ago

Have you tried looking at this situation from a different viewpoint? The responses of many of those people who are against Eich in this case can best be described as "vile, hateful and vicious", to use your words. Their calls for him to lose his job, or for Mozilla as a whole to suffer boycotts, can be described as an effort to "enforce misery, shame and frustration". The problem here is that we have some people claiming to be against discrimination, yet they in turn have absolutely no problem engaging in such behavior toward Eich. I think that this sort of hypocrisy really undermines their cause, and most of them don't seem to realize this.

patrickmay 13y ago
Eich contributed financially to actively discriminate against people based on an attribute they cannot change, just like gender or race. Those of us "discriminating" against Eich are doing so based on his voluntary behavior. You are suggesting a false equivalence.
- sehr 13y ago
  attribute they cannot change, just like gender or race Again, look at it from another point of view. There is a reason there are Christian 'conversion' camps, these people simply don't see it as being set in stone.
  - parasubvert 13y ago
    Sure, one could look at it from that point of view. And decide it was a vile, destructive view and to help those victimized by such a barbaric, anti-Christian (speaking as a lapsed Catholic!) notion. I can understand a point of view and even support one's freedom to practice it (by the government), but I also can do everything in my legal power to make sure those views are marginalized and the damage they inflict minimized. Which is no less than what anti-gay marriage folks have been doing. And losing the battle, I might add.
  - coldpie 13y ago
    Sure, and we could bleach skin or perform surgery to alter other characteristics of people. And yet, discrimination based on physical characteristics is illegal.
parasubvert 13y ago
This actually isn't that hard to understand. Discrimination is definitionally related to systematic prejudice. Their counter-reaction is neither systemic nor unwarranted (as prejudice is). One could argue that in this era of social change we should be more tolerant of anti-gay marriage folks, bigots, etc, as this is a generational divide that will pass. However would also could make an argument that when (a) you're a public figure as the CEO of a major nonprofit and (b) you've publicly stated and financially supported the potentially bigoted position, you will be the target of counter-attacks. So, no I don't shed a tear for Brendan Eich. If the first thing he did as Mozilla CEO was to hold a press conference to repudiate his prior actions no that he is a public figure and commit Mozilla to gay-friendliness (not "internal memo" stuff we've been hearing), there would have been no issue. The organization is largely identified with its leadership, and this drama is playing out like a host rejecting a donor organ - this isn't just outside opinion, Mozilla employees are speaking out! They are based in California, what did they expect?
- gcp 13y ago
  They are based in California, what did they expect? Well, Prop 8 did pass, so...
  - parasubvert 13y ago
    Touché :-). But I meant the larger (more liberal) enclaves like the SF South Bay.
ubernostrum 13y ago
The problem here is that we have some people claiming to be against discrimination, yet they in turn have absolutely no problem engaging in such behavior toward Eich. I make a simple claim: equality before the law, for all persons, is a necessary feature of a free society. Notice how this says nothing about "tolerance", "discrimination", "diversity", "inclusiveness" nor any of the other frankly pathetic attempts people have tried at the "you're just as bad" argument. The line is drawn at attempting to create a society in which not all persons are equal before the law. Proposition 8 crossed that line, and I feel free to condemn it and its supporters with all my strength.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I do not see "marriage" as synonymous with "love" in any way (and historically, it often hasn't been). It's a culturally significant ritual and definitely of high symbolic importance for a lot of people, but that's as far as I can say. "Vile, hateful and vicious" views would be doing something akin to what Pat Robertson does. The most you could say about Eich is that his views are objectionable, but they do not seem to be at any focal point of his ideology. The tactic of "social justice ad shitstorm" does not work in doing anything besides inflaming people's prejudices even more, raising other people's sense of moral superiority and giving a headache to anyone else who doesn't feel like viewing `Outrage Porn #{MAX_INT}`.

bakhy 13y ago
a) why is it that people suddenly realize that marriage is useless when gay marriage is debated? it's really off topic on this thread. b) "The tactic .. does not work" - this is just plain false. many important social changes were brought about through protesting against injustice.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  a) In my case, I've held these views concerning the utility of marriage for a while. However, to answer your question, since gay marriage is still very much an unorthodox institution to many people, it likely provokes them to think outside of their usual boundaries on the topic of marriage in general. b) This is a very, very watered down form of "protesting against injustice". You're essentially attacking one person and trying to boycott the decades of seminal work by a non-profit foundation for free software over one morally objectionable act. One that he does not seem to bring into his workplace, and one that by the way, got ruled unconstitutional and overturned. It has no present effect on anyone. Of course, it is remarkably less difficult to do that, while still flying under the guise of a greater cause.
  - bakhy 13y ago
    a) who is "them"? :) don't get me wrong, i respect the anti-marriage attitude, it's a legitimate position. but it's not fair to bring it up when the topic is marriage equality. even if you're against marriage, i think you should support marriage equality - because, if marriage is here, it should at least be fair to all. the fact that you may be against marriage in general does not really matter as much on this particular topic. b) there is no imperative for Mozilla to have him as the CEO. however, when Mozilla places him as CEO and sticks to it, then it is a potential problem.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

Computers may have been invented out of intellectual curiosity, but they were produced for war. Now what? Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber -- just the glasses should be enough to tell you this man might be very evil, and he is indeed "the father of chemical warfare". But wait, he's also responsible for the discovery that allows huge numbers of people to live. Now what? Let's simply assume Brendan Eich is a very evil man, that prop 8 is just the tip of the iceberg. Well, but, Mozilla. Now what? How about this, if you propose to throw the baby out with the bath water, find us a new baby first? Let's use computation machines invented for love, let's use fertilizer invented by someone who had at least contact lenses, let's use browsers and languages made by catholic priests who secretly marry gay couples and get hunted all over the world by the pope for that. I'd be down with that... but first they need to exist. Until then, to let billions of people starve, or to give even more of the web up to Google and Apple, is not actually morally superior to the alternative of realizing that life is messy, humans doubly so, and we don't just owe a lot of what we take for granted to saints, but to the whole spectrum. > "those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration". That in itself is a rather vicious and dehumanizing view. It's awfully convenient to have people who are pure evil while you yourself are pure good -- it's also nonsense.

bakhy 13y ago
actually, Eich could just step down. problem solved. no need for all the drama, dude ;)
- gcp 13y ago
  That's equal to admitting your career in a technological organization is strongly determined by whatever personal political views you hold.
  - bakhy 13y ago
    no, i'm just pointing out that there is no need to launch any kind of crusade against Mozilla, as the parent implied. it isn't such an XOR situation - either accept everything Eich does, or drop Mozilla altogether. i'm still using Mozilla. protesting him as the CEO does not imply abandoning or destroying Mozilla. JavaScript neither! and it's not really my career or your career, he's the CEO (!) of Mozilla. it is a company with a certain ideal behind it, and he has opened discussion on whether his past behavior is at odds with that. his defenders too often here take the position that there simply should not be such a discussion... personally, i do think it is a bit blown out of proportion. but it did offend me. particularly the claim that it is just his freedom of opinion and that Mozilla itself would crumble if he would change his opinion now (?!) and all that hiding behind Indonesian people, what's up with that? in any case, for me it is about me, and my life. it is not some abstract subject. it's not something i can just donate a little money to, and ignore it the rest of the time. it was people voting about my life (i'm from Croatia, but we had our referendum last year), and about a subject that will not concern their life or family at all.. i just must complain... because i don't want to use Chrome :)