4 ms·

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 descri

by 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.

by Pacabel 13y ago

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.