65 ms·

I am a strong supporter of gay marriage, but I have to say that I find this very unfortunate and worrying. Apparently many Mozilla supporters seem to think it i

I am a strong supporter of gay marriage, but I have to say that I find this very unfortunate and worrying. Apparently many Mozilla supporters seem to think it is okay to bully a qualified person out of his job only for his political views, even if they had absolutely no effect on his qualification or his actions on the job. I can't help but feel like this campaign has done a lot more harm to him than his $1000 donation could have ever done to anyone.

tripzilch 13y ago
Just because it's still up for debate in some of the more unenlightened parts of the world doesn't mean it's a reasonable position to support. So, many things can be argued to be a "political view" somewhere.
matthewmacleod 13y ago
Apparently many Mozilla supporters seem to think it is okay to bully a qualified person out of his job only for his political views, even if they had absolutely no effect on his qualification I disagree that those views had no effect on his qualification. Mozilla's values specifically talk about diversity and inclusion; Eich has previously acted in a way that's totally incompatible with those views. On top of that, he did not succeed in defusing the situation before it got to this stage – something which I would expect a person in an important and visible leadership position to be able to deal with. Remember that Eich had previously actively campaigned against removing civil rights from people employed within the ranks of Mozilla, and indeed members of the wider community. How can it legitimately be called bullying to oppose the appointment of somebody as a community leader when that person has been actively seeking to harm you?
dnr 13y ago
One person losing his job, compared to millions of people not being able to marry the person they love? Even if you figure that $1000 as a fraction of the money raised by the campaign, you're still talking about significant emotional harm to hundreds or thousands of people directly affected within CA. But the effects are actually much greater, because the CA decision was not made in a vacuum: it affected public sentiment all over the country, and the world. Delays in full marriage equality in CA mean delays in general societal acceptance of gay people, which means more bullying of LGBT children and teenagers, more suicides, more people getting disowned by their families. Equating the harm done to him to even a fraction of the direct and follow-on effects of the prop 8 campaign seems almost offensive, to me. [Edit: Even so, I think the reaction was a little over the top and this outcome was unfortunate. However, I don't feel bad for him.]
- Dewie 13y ago
  > But the effects are actually much greater, because the CA decision was not made in a vacuum: it affected public sentiment all over the country, and the world. Who holds up America as an example/ideal of socially progressive policies? People who are waiting for Americans to lead the way with socially liberal laws might be waiting for a good while.
  - dnr 13y ago
    As the most populous state, with a reputation for being fairly liberal (but of course that's only the coastal areas), and one of the earlier states to try to address the issue through a referendum, CA was definitely looked to as a bellweather on the issue by the rest of the US. Of course, the relationship between the US and the rest of the world is totally different.
jroseattle 13y ago
> political views Labeling one's belief in fundamental inequality among citizenry as a "political view" simply serves to make the argument for inequality sound OK. It's not OK.
rbanffy 13y ago
Is his political views are contrary to some of the organization's core values (such as diversity and inclusiveness), then he should have refused the job. To be fair, I don't think anyone saw this as an issue at that point. Everyone has blind spots.
crassus 13y ago
The tech community needs to rewatch "The Lives of Others". Making ideological purity a precondition to employment is fucking terrifying. I'm terrified.
- oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
  Jesus, no-one is arguing for that. Do you really think that 'being homophobic' and being 'ideologically pure' are right next to each other on some bizarre morality scale? They are MILES apart.
- saturdaysaint 13y ago
  Right, and the fact that no CEO could safely utter racist sentiments is another sign of how we're living this Orwellian nightmare.
robbyking 13y ago
What if he had supported legislation to ban marriage between people of different races? Would you say that that has absolutely no effect on his qualification or his actions on the job?
garretraziel 13y ago
I have to disagree. Let aside if it is right or wrong to support homophobic groups. Essence is that many people would hate him for what he did - and I think that it is bad to have CEO who is hated for his personal opinions. I live in Czech Republic and our past president was global warming denier, he wrote several books about that. I will not judge if he was right or not, but because he had so strong and controversial opinions, it shed bad light on our country. I think that when you are "public person" or spokesman, you have to be very careful about what you do and say, because then you aren't hurting only yourself, but whole organisation you represent.
return0 13y ago
On top of it, the resignation shines a bad light on gay-marriage activism, nobody likes a bully.
- bashinator 13y ago
  So registering an opinion about the actions of a public figure is bullying, but making a monetary donation to restrict the rights of a minority is not?
  - return0 13y ago
    I can't believe i have to say it, but donating to a cause, no matter how misguided, is meant to effect the public opinion in a certain way through certain channels. Asking for his job, his head or his property because of his opinions is bullying [mob rule is a better term], not civil discourse!
    - ubernostrum 13y ago
      Proposition 8 was not a campaign to change the political views of people. It had but one purpose, and that purpose was to declare a subset of the population legally unequal to everyone else.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - return0 13y ago
        Everything is political, unless you presume that laws come from nature or from god. If we 're all defacto equal vs marriage, then i could marry my 6-year old cousin.
        ubernostrum 13y ago
cmelbye 13y ago
Mozilla is perhaps a special case. In other organizations, I might understand that argument. To me, it feels like a case of cognitive dissonance when the organization promotes free speech, free expression, etc., while its CEO donates to organizations which restrict it. (Whether or not one agrees with that is besides the point. Mozilla's board does, which is what matters with this decision.)
- yawboakye 13y ago
  Can we say he was empowered by Mozilla's culture to pursue his political view with a passion same as LGBTQ employees of Mozilla would? When did being homophobic become the wrong view to have?
- EpicEng 13y ago
  >Whether or not one agrees with that is besides the point. Mozilla's board does, which is what matters with this decision. Mozilla's board put him there to begin with. This is not a moral issue for them.
  - cmelbye 13y ago
    Mozilla's board is, in fact, not omniscient and may not have foreseen this controversy.
    - EpicEng 13y ago
      That's neither here nor there. I was responding to a comment which claimed that the CEO's views were not in line with the board's, you know, the board that made him CEO, and implied that it had something to do with the CEO stepping down. As you say, I'm sure they didn't see an uproar this large coming, but that has nothing to do with my comment.
ceejayoz 13y ago
So... Bullying: tweeting/emailing/blogging an opinion on Mozilla's decisions Not bullying: taking significant monetary action to push for discrimination against 5-10% of the country
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- wpietri 13y ago
  Yep! Paying to help keep family members apart and put children at risk is a reasonable political action, one everybody should be a-ok with. Saying that you don't like that? Shocking oppression of an innocent man.
dopamean 13y ago
I generally agree with you but I think the problem here is that being against gay marriage is more than just a "political view." Being for low taxes is a political view. Being for smaller government is a political view. Believing a certain group of people don't deserve to live their lives like other simply because of who they love is not a political view. It reads as extremely hateful and that makes people uncomfortable. I would be uncomfortable if the head of the company I worked for felt that way.
- Amillennialist 13y ago
  "Believing a certain group of people don't deserve to live their lives like other simply because of who they love is not a political view. It reads as extremely hateful and that makes people uncomfortable." Sin is not "love." And lust does not create a Constitutional right. Refusing to legitimize an unnatural and perverse act by calling it "marriage" is not bigotry; refusing to redefine one of society's fundamental institutions is not "hateful" (but demonizing those who defend it is). No one I know wants to deny anyone their license to play house with the consenting adult(s) of their choosing. Not all adults have the right to marry. Would you abolish all barriers to it? Would you redefine the word into absurdity? What about sodomy makes it sacrosanct to you? It's a behavior; as such, it is subject to moral judgment. Where do you draw the line? Incest? Polygyny? Zoophilia? Pedophilia? A young adult male and his browser? Why can't they all get married? What gives you the right to deny them their equality? Who are you to forbid their happiness? Why are you such a hater? You don't have any problem making moral judgments against those whose morality you despise. That makes you "extremely hateful," doesn't it? This isn't about equal rights. (How absurd.) This isn't about "letting people live like others." This is about using the force of government -- and now, the marketplace -- to coerce the endorsement of that which is immoral and unnatural. This is about demonizing those whose positions you dislike. And that doesn't even depend on religious doctrine -- though Christ's endorsement of one man, one woman, for life with the glorious possibility of children should be enough. Nowhere in Nature does any species engage in exclusively-homosexual relationships. Even the Darwinist knows that exclusively-homosexual relationships mean the end of the species. And it's a violation of design; even a simple man knows that the relevant organs are made for ... other purposes. And you won't let Eich "live his life like others." Fascist. Hypocrite.
vidarh 13y ago
As CEO, part of his responsibilities include the overall corporate culture. You don't see why people might be concerned that someone who put money forward to support a measure with the goal of actively discriminating a group of people might not be qualified to ensure an inclusive, non-discriminatory corporate culture?
pessimizer 13y ago
>even if they had absolutely no effect on his qualification or his actions on the job. There's no evidence of this either way, and the qualifications for being a CEO are nearly orthogonal to the qualifications for being a developer. He's clearly an outstanding developer; though javascript seems the product of a damaged mind, it's the water we all swim in. As a CEO, he chooses the direction of the company and manages its employees. Being a homophobe could directly apply to some decisions that he would be tasked with making (although he promised it wouldn't and I believed him), but also speaks to his softer (non-code) decision-making skills. >I can't help but feel like this campaign has done a lot more harm to him than his $1000 donation could have ever done to anyone. He's been punished by not being allowed to be CEO. Feel free to cry for him, but he's 5 billionth on the list for me. The donation was made years ago, we all know about it, we still respect him and work with him. I just don't want him being my boss, or the boss of anyone I love.
- blisterpeanuts 13y ago
  What evidence is there that he's a "homophobe"? 7 million other Californians also voted for Prop 8. Does that make them all homophobes?
  - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
    Either homophobes, or very misguided. All the evidence points towards Eich falling in the former camp, unfortunately. To recap: "Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs." It's pretty clear to me that campaigning to prevent homosexuals from enjoying the same rights as heterosexuals falls under this definition.
    - kirkbackus 13y ago
      The problem with the word "homophobia" is that it tells us almost nothing about a person. Not only does it include people who have negative attitudes toward the people, it also includes people who have a negative attitude towards homosexuality. There is a major difference here: a person and lifestyle are NOT the same thing. Someone who does not like homosexuality can have a positive attitude toward homosexuals. The Wikipedia definition of "homophobia" is just a straw man fallacy waiting to happen.
jasonlotito 13y ago
> even if they had absolutely no effect on his qualification or his actions on the job. It did affect his ability to fill his role as CEO of Mozilla. A CEO is not just another employee. A CEO is the face of the organization.
- Havvy 13y ago
  What does this even mean? I have no clue who any of the past CEOs of Mozilla were, or that Mozilla was without a CEO for a period of time until Brenden Eich, somebody I've known about for years as a person in the Mozilla Organization, became the CEO. You want the face of Mozilla? Look at http://planet.mozilla.org/ http://planet.mozilla.org/, not the CEO.
benched 13y ago
"for his political views" In this case, you cannot speak generally like this. In this case, it really matters exactly what those political views are, not just that they are "political". And that's why there was such an uproar, and why he's stepping down. People seem to be willfully misunderstanding this. It's not like, "Whoa! Guys! We can persecute people for their ''''political'''' views now? What's up with that?" No, it's more like we're sick of having to liberate all the people that some people find too 'othery', one group at a time. We've seen this before. We know how it goes. We know how it ends, and we're less inclined than ever to play nice with the oppressing side. And it really does not take a genius, or an orator, to see which side is the oppressing one.
- andrewguenther 13y ago
  "And it really does not take a genius, or an orator, to see which side is the oppressing one." I only see one side that pushed someone out of a job here.
  - benched 13y ago
    On a scale of 1 to 5, how strong of an argument do you believe you're making right here? That an individual assuming a position of high leadership being pressured to leave that leadership position, is equivalent enough to people withholding civil rights from a minority group, to use the word "oppress" to refer to both, to make a rhetorical point? Do you feel like you're really nailing the issue here? Also, now I have to take back that line anyway. Maybe it does take the ability to categorize well.
  - devindotcom 13y ago
    I only see one being denied a civil right...?
return0 13y ago
He should have just said that he's a devout christian or muslim, and therefore does not condone gay marriage. It would suddenly become adorable in the name of tolerance and diversity.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  It can be fairly reliably assumed at this point that someone opposing gay marriage is a devout something-or-other.
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
Vicious bigotry is not "a political view". Can we please stop comparing Eich's hateful, hurtful and downright delusional notions with ordinary political or personal views? Being anti-gay is not a political view. And being anti gay marriage is just a very, very lame and transparent attempt to make being anti-gay seem somehow less hateful. Hating people for what they are may be very human, understandable even, but it's not a "political view".
bambax 13y ago
Thanks for saying this. I'm usually very angry with people who oppose gay marriage (why do they care??) But this is just bullying. This is another form of hate.
tdicola 13y ago
I don't agree that he was bullied out of his position. He held a belief that wasn't in line with what the Mozilla organization believes is in their best interests. The most logical thing would be for him to not represent the company as the CEO anymore. It's no different than if he believed Firefox should be a closed source shrink-wrapped product or other view that is contrary to Mozilla's mission. edit: The statement from Mozilla even says "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech." Eich's views were contrary to this mission, so him leading the company made no sense at all.
- protomyth 13y ago
  "He held a belief that wasn't in line with what the Mozilla organization believes is in their best interests." The problem now will be what is starting to happen on certain social media sites[1] with other employees of Mozilla. It looks like quite a few people are looking at what they have donated. So far, it looks like someone actually donated to Lyndon Larouche who has been accused of being an anti-semite. I would imagine if any employee of Mozilla has donated to questionable groups, its going to be all over the place now. I wish Mozilla had worked all this out in advance and thought of the consequences. It is no fun having everything you've ever donated to put under a microscope. I wonder if it is just rumblings or will we see the typical "second wave mob" that generally happens in these situations. You can say none of these people are CEO, but that really won't stop anything. 1) search for yourself, I'm not spreading these links and I'm not very fond of the behavior, and I could write an article on how it is taught on both sides of the political spectrum. Tit-for-tat is scary at a personal level.
- ralfd 13y ago
  What if he was once donating to an anti-gun campaign and the NRA advocating its members to replace Firefox as browsers (or vice versa)? This is a witch hunt.
- piyush_soni 13y ago
  Again, views of an individual don't necessarily have to match the view of an organization. That's why they have a separate mission statement for an organization. Otherwise you'd just pick up the mission of any one of the employees. This is ridiculous to force him to step down by causing public humiliation.
rossjudson 13y ago
I can't help but wish that the gay community would focus its attention on asshats like "Supervisor" Eugene Delgaudio, instead of Brendan Eich. Delgaudio is an elected official with a virulent anti-gay rhetoric (in addition to being ethically challenged, and having avoided criminal prosecution by the narrowest of loopholes in Virginia law).
general_failure 13y ago
Well, this is exactly what people wanted after the learnt about this stance and his reactions. I don't understand why you find this worrying. It's mob justice but justice nevertheless. As a CEO, he simply has to accept and support popular opinion and views. That's how people in top management survive.
vacri 13y ago
Apparently many Mozilla supporters... bully I would wager that plenty of those opposing Eich don't actually use Mozilla products. Chrome is the most popular browser, not Firefox, and their other products aren't monopolies either. Of the several screeds I read against Eich, not one of them said "We currently use a Mozilla product and now no longer will".
- camus2 13y ago
  I would wager that plenty of those opposing Eich don't actually use Mozilla products. but their relatives might use Firefox, and these relatives might listen those who oppose Eich because they are family...that's called social effect.
  - jrmcauliffe 13y ago
    I would guess the proportion of non-tech family that equate firefox/'The Internet' with this set of circumstances approaches zero.
deveac 13y ago
Apparently many Mozilla supporters seem to think it is okay to bully a qualified person out of his job only for his political views He was not qualified for his job. Mozilla is a non-profit organization founded on ideals. It has a social and ethical mission as opposed to a directive to earn profits for shareholders. His social views made him unqualified to lead a company whose purpose was social good. There are plenty of for profit businesses that do not fit that mold where he would be a better fit. Additionally, he was not bullied. He gave publicly supported both in words and tangible resources initiatives to deny equality to others and people within his organization and without responded vocally and negatively. If that falls within the definition of bullying (I don't consider vocally calling out bigotry and intolerance as applicable here) then I'd argue he was a far bigger bully than those outraged by his actions and appointment.
lholden 13y ago
I have a hard time when segregation gets labeled as a "political view". Segregation is a lot more than a political issue, but also a human rights issue. That $1000 actively helped pass a bill that prevented consenting adult couples who wished to spend their lives together from having the same legal rights as everyone else. His donation in this case was more than having a political view, but actually helped to promote segregation. Why would I want someone who has tried to take away my rights as the CEO of a company that I care about? If it was just his "view", this would not be the issue that it has been.
xahrepap 13y ago
I agree with what you said. I hate it when "Free Speech" is viewed as a one way street. For example: > Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard. Ok, Mozilla believes in free speech? Not according to how they have behaved. So why was their last CEO canned (oh... he "stepped down"... whatever)? If they really believed in free speech they would've left his opinion his opinion, and judged his capacity as CEO based on his work. None of what I have read or heard about all this actually offensive until I read that sentence in the report.
kjsingh 13y ago
Agreed. And this way we are surely not helping him change his views. Or be more inclusive.
shinratdr 13y ago
> I am a strong supporter of gay marriage I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true. I would argue the very first criteria for someone who "strong[ly]" supports gay marriage would be that they consider it a civil rights issue and not a political one. Bigotry isn't a sacrosanct opinion, and just because politicians have debated about it doesn't make an issue solely political.
homulilly 13y ago
You can't really compare large scale oppression to individual inconvenience. Besides, being denied equal rights and being denied the opportunity to be CEO of Mozilla are obviously not even remotely comparable.
nashequilibrium 13y ago
Political views are about allocating scarce resources when confronted with unlimited wants and needs. The act of paying to deny a group of people basic rights that all other groups enjoy is an act of discrimination. Now, a company is a corporate entity that has a brand identity, which it continuously communicates to its audience and the message that Mozilla's sends out is in total contradiction to Brendan Eich's actions. When the message the Ceo sends out grabs more attention and is detrimental to the corporate identity of a company, then it is time to part ways, as this will manifest into a huge consumer base loss. Why? Because consumers align themselves even stronger with corporations that push charity, tolerance and freedom as their main identity like Tom's shoes. The biggest sin a company can do in a highly competitive market is to alienate their most vocal consumer base, where they no longer see their principles reflected in the company's identity. Mozilla is now bigger than Brendan Eich.
dredmorbius 13y ago
I'm leery of politically-correct thinking, as well, but I feel Eich had to go, and he made the right decision. The quote by Baker which Swisher highlighted nails it: Eich had become a distraction and his presence at the helm, and as a figurehead for Mozilla, was a distraction. The fact that Mozilla itself is a symbol for freedom from oppression also doesn't sit well with Eich's political beliefs, and more importantly, activities. There's also the fact that times and beliefs can change: I'm not a believer in absolutes of ethical and moral values. Often very quickly and disconcertingly for those who live through those changes. I can remember when discrimination and abuse against gays and others was simply part of the landscape and widely accepted (as it still is in too many places). But within the cultural, creative, and intellectual cores of the world, that's no longer the case.

tripzilch 13y ago

Just because it's still up for debate in some of the more unenlightened parts of the world doesn't mean it's a reasonable position to support. So, many things can be argued to be a "political view" somewhere.

matthewmacleod 13y ago

Apparently many Mozilla supporters seem to think it is okay to bully a qualified person out of his job only for his political views, even if they had absolutely no effect on his qualification I disagree that those views had no effect on his qualification. Mozilla's values specifically talk about diversity and inclusion; Eich has previously acted in a way that's totally incompatible with those views. On top of that, he did not succeed in defusing the situation before it got to this stage – something which I would expect a person in an important and visible leadership position to be able to deal with. Remember that Eich had previously actively campaigned against removing civil rights from people employed within the ranks of Mozilla, and indeed members of the wider community. How can it legitimately be called bullying to oppose the appointment of somebody as a community leader when that person has been actively seeking to harm you?

dnr 13y ago

One person losing his job, compared to millions of people not being able to marry the person they love? Even if you figure that $1000 as a fraction of the money raised by the campaign, you're still talking about significant emotional harm to hundreds or thousands of people directly affected within CA. But the effects are actually much greater, because the CA decision was not made in a vacuum: it affected public sentiment all over the country, and the world. Delays in full marriage equality in CA mean delays in general societal acceptance of gay people, which means more bullying of LGBT children and teenagers, more suicides, more people getting disowned by their families. Equating the harm done to him to even a fraction of the direct and follow-on effects of the prop 8 campaign seems almost offensive, to me. [Edit: Even so, I think the reaction was a little over the top and this outcome was unfortunate. However, I don't feel bad for him.]

Dewie 13y ago
> But the effects are actually much greater, because the CA decision was not made in a vacuum: it affected public sentiment all over the country, and the world. Who holds up America as an example/ideal of socially progressive policies? People who are waiting for Americans to lead the way with socially liberal laws might be waiting for a good while.
- dnr 13y ago
  As the most populous state, with a reputation for being fairly liberal (but of course that's only the coastal areas), and one of the earlier states to try to address the issue through a referendum, CA was definitely looked to as a bellweather on the issue by the rest of the US. Of course, the relationship between the US and the rest of the world is totally different.

jroseattle 13y ago

> political views Labeling one's belief in fundamental inequality among citizenry as a "political view" simply serves to make the argument for inequality sound OK. It's not OK.

rbanffy 13y ago

Is his political views are contrary to some of the organization's core values (such as diversity and inclusiveness), then he should have refused the job. To be fair, I don't think anyone saw this as an issue at that point. Everyone has blind spots.

crassus 13y ago

The tech community needs to rewatch "The Lives of Others". Making ideological purity a precondition to employment is fucking terrifying. I'm terrified.

oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
Jesus, no-one is arguing for that. Do you really think that 'being homophobic' and being 'ideologically pure' are right next to each other on some bizarre morality scale? They are MILES apart.
saturdaysaint 13y ago
Right, and the fact that no CEO could safely utter racist sentiments is another sign of how we're living this Orwellian nightmare.

robbyking 13y ago

What if he had supported legislation to ban marriage between people of different races? Would you say that that has absolutely no effect on his qualification or his actions on the job?

garretraziel 13y ago

I have to disagree. Let aside if it is right or wrong to support homophobic groups. Essence is that many people would hate him for what he did - and I think that it is bad to have CEO who is hated for his personal opinions. I live in Czech Republic and our past president was global warming denier, he wrote several books about that. I will not judge if he was right or not, but because he had so strong and controversial opinions, it shed bad light on our country. I think that when you are "public person" or spokesman, you have to be very careful about what you do and say, because then you aren't hurting only yourself, but whole organisation you represent.

return0 13y ago

On top of it, the resignation shines a bad light on gay-marriage activism, nobody likes a bully.

bashinator 13y ago
So registering an opinion about the actions of a public figure is bullying, but making a monetary donation to restrict the rights of a minority is not?
- return0 13y ago
  I can't believe i have to say it, but donating to a cause, no matter how misguided, is meant to effect the public opinion in a certain way through certain channels. Asking for his job, his head or his property because of his opinions is bullying [mob rule is a better term], not civil discourse!
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    Proposition 8 was not a campaign to change the political views of people. It had but one purpose, and that purpose was to declare a subset of the population legally unequal to everyone else.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - return0 13y ago
      Everything is political, unless you presume that laws come from nature or from god. If we 're all defacto equal vs marriage, then i could marry my 6-year old cousin.
      - ubernostrum 13y ago

cmelbye 13y ago

Mozilla is perhaps a special case. In other organizations, I might understand that argument. To me, it feels like a case of cognitive dissonance when the organization promotes free speech, free expression, etc., while its CEO donates to organizations which restrict it. (Whether or not one agrees with that is besides the point. Mozilla's board does, which is what matters with this decision.)

yawboakye 13y ago
Can we say he was empowered by Mozilla's culture to pursue his political view with a passion same as LGBTQ employees of Mozilla would? When did being homophobic become the wrong view to have?
EpicEng 13y ago
>Whether or not one agrees with that is besides the point. Mozilla's board does, which is what matters with this decision. Mozilla's board put him there to begin with. This is not a moral issue for them.
- cmelbye 13y ago
  Mozilla's board is, in fact, not omniscient and may not have foreseen this controversy.
  - EpicEng 13y ago
    That's neither here nor there. I was responding to a comment which claimed that the CEO's views were not in line with the board's, you know, the board that made him CEO, and implied that it had something to do with the CEO stepping down. As you say, I'm sure they didn't see an uproar this large coming, but that has nothing to do with my comment.

ceejayoz 13y ago

So... Bullying: tweeting/emailing/blogging an opinion on Mozilla's decisions Not bullying: taking significant monetary action to push for discrimination against 5-10% of the country

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
wpietri 13y ago
Yep! Paying to help keep family members apart and put children at risk is a reasonable political action, one everybody should be a-ok with. Saying that you don't like that? Shocking oppression of an innocent man.

dopamean 13y ago

I generally agree with you but I think the problem here is that being against gay marriage is more than just a "political view." Being for low taxes is a political view. Being for smaller government is a political view. Believing a certain group of people don't deserve to live their lives like other simply because of who they love is not a political view. It reads as extremely hateful and that makes people uncomfortable. I would be uncomfortable if the head of the company I worked for felt that way.

Amillennialist 13y ago
"Believing a certain group of people don't deserve to live their lives like other simply because of who they love is not a political view. It reads as extremely hateful and that makes people uncomfortable." Sin is not "love." And lust does not create a Constitutional right. Refusing to legitimize an unnatural and perverse act by calling it "marriage" is not bigotry; refusing to redefine one of society's fundamental institutions is not "hateful" (but demonizing those who defend it is). No one I know wants to deny anyone their license to play house with the consenting adult(s) of their choosing. Not all adults have the right to marry. Would you abolish all barriers to it? Would you redefine the word into absurdity? What about sodomy makes it sacrosanct to you? It's a behavior; as such, it is subject to moral judgment. Where do you draw the line? Incest? Polygyny? Zoophilia? Pedophilia? A young adult male and his browser? Why can't they all get married? What gives you the right to deny them their equality? Who are you to forbid their happiness? Why are you such a hater? You don't have any problem making moral judgments against those whose morality you despise. That makes you "extremely hateful," doesn't it? This isn't about equal rights. (How absurd.) This isn't about "letting people live like others." This is about using the force of government -- and now, the marketplace -- to coerce the endorsement of that which is immoral and unnatural. This is about demonizing those whose positions you dislike. And that doesn't even depend on religious doctrine -- though Christ's endorsement of one man, one woman, for life with the glorious possibility of children should be enough. Nowhere in Nature does any species engage in exclusively-homosexual relationships. Even the Darwinist knows that exclusively-homosexual relationships mean the end of the species. And it's a violation of design; even a simple man knows that the relevant organs are made for ... other purposes. And you won't let Eich "live his life like others." Fascist. Hypocrite.

vidarh 13y ago

As CEO, part of his responsibilities include the overall corporate culture. You don't see why people might be concerned that someone who put money forward to support a measure with the goal of actively discriminating a group of people might not be qualified to ensure an inclusive, non-discriminatory corporate culture?

pessimizer 13y ago

>even if they had absolutely no effect on his qualification or his actions on the job. There's no evidence of this either way, and the qualifications for being a CEO are nearly orthogonal to the qualifications for being a developer. He's clearly an outstanding developer; though javascript seems the product of a damaged mind, it's the water we all swim in. As a CEO, he chooses the direction of the company and manages its employees. Being a homophobe could directly apply to some decisions that he would be tasked with making (although he promised it wouldn't and I believed him), but also speaks to his softer (non-code) decision-making skills. >I can't help but feel like this campaign has done a lot more harm to him than his $1000 donation could have ever done to anyone. He's been punished by not being allowed to be CEO. Feel free to cry for him, but he's 5 billionth on the list for me. The donation was made years ago, we all know about it, we still respect him and work with him. I just don't want him being my boss, or the boss of anyone I love.

blisterpeanuts 13y ago
What evidence is there that he's a "homophobe"? 7 million other Californians also voted for Prop 8. Does that make them all homophobes?
- oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
  Either homophobes, or very misguided. All the evidence points towards Eich falling in the former camp, unfortunately. To recap: "Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs." It's pretty clear to me that campaigning to prevent homosexuals from enjoying the same rights as heterosexuals falls under this definition.
  - kirkbackus 13y ago
    The problem with the word "homophobia" is that it tells us almost nothing about a person. Not only does it include people who have negative attitudes toward the people, it also includes people who have a negative attitude towards homosexuality. There is a major difference here: a person and lifestyle are NOT the same thing. Someone who does not like homosexuality can have a positive attitude toward homosexuals. The Wikipedia definition of "homophobia" is just a straw man fallacy waiting to happen.

jasonlotito 13y ago

> even if they had absolutely no effect on his qualification or his actions on the job. It did affect his ability to fill his role as CEO of Mozilla. A CEO is not just another employee. A CEO is the face of the organization.

Havvy 13y ago
What does this even mean? I have no clue who any of the past CEOs of Mozilla were, or that Mozilla was without a CEO for a period of time until Brenden Eich, somebody I've known about for years as a person in the Mozilla Organization, became the CEO. You want the face of Mozilla? Look at http://planet.mozilla.org/ http://planet.mozilla.org/, not the CEO.

benched 13y ago

"for his political views" In this case, you cannot speak generally like this. In this case, it really matters exactly what those political views are, not just that they are "political". And that's why there was such an uproar, and why he's stepping down. People seem to be willfully misunderstanding this. It's not like, "Whoa! Guys! We can persecute people for their ''''political'''' views now? What's up with that?" No, it's more like we're sick of having to liberate all the people that some people find too 'othery', one group at a time. We've seen this before. We know how it goes. We know how it ends, and we're less inclined than ever to play nice with the oppressing side. And it really does not take a genius, or an orator, to see which side is the oppressing one.

andrewguenther 13y ago
"And it really does not take a genius, or an orator, to see which side is the oppressing one." I only see one side that pushed someone out of a job here.
- benched 13y ago
  On a scale of 1 to 5, how strong of an argument do you believe you're making right here? That an individual assuming a position of high leadership being pressured to leave that leadership position, is equivalent enough to people withholding civil rights from a minority group, to use the word "oppress" to refer to both, to make a rhetorical point? Do you feel like you're really nailing the issue here? Also, now I have to take back that line anyway. Maybe it does take the ability to categorize well.
- devindotcom 13y ago
  I only see one being denied a civil right...?

return0 13y ago

He should have just said that he's a devout christian or muslim, and therefore does not condone gay marriage. It would suddenly become adorable in the name of tolerance and diversity.

ceejayoz 13y ago
It can be fairly reliably assumed at this point that someone opposing gay marriage is a devout something-or-other.

bowlofpetunias 13y ago

Vicious bigotry is not "a political view". Can we please stop comparing Eich's hateful, hurtful and downright delusional notions with ordinary political or personal views? Being anti-gay is not a political view. And being anti gay marriage is just a very, very lame and transparent attempt to make being anti-gay seem somehow less hateful. Hating people for what they are may be very human, understandable even, but it's not a "political view".

bambax 13y ago

Thanks for saying this. I'm usually very angry with people who oppose gay marriage (why do they care??) But this is just bullying. This is another form of hate.

tdicola 13y ago

I don't agree that he was bullied out of his position. He held a belief that wasn't in line with what the Mozilla organization believes is in their best interests. The most logical thing would be for him to not represent the company as the CEO anymore. It's no different than if he believed Firefox should be a closed source shrink-wrapped product or other view that is contrary to Mozilla's mission. edit: The statement from Mozilla even says "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech." Eich's views were contrary to this mission, so him leading the company made no sense at all.

protomyth 13y ago
"He held a belief that wasn't in line with what the Mozilla organization believes is in their best interests." The problem now will be what is starting to happen on certain social media sites[1] with other employees of Mozilla. It looks like quite a few people are looking at what they have donated. So far, it looks like someone actually donated to Lyndon Larouche who has been accused of being an anti-semite. I would imagine if any employee of Mozilla has donated to questionable groups, its going to be all over the place now. I wish Mozilla had worked all this out in advance and thought of the consequences. It is no fun having everything you've ever donated to put under a microscope. I wonder if it is just rumblings or will we see the typical "second wave mob" that generally happens in these situations. You can say none of these people are CEO, but that really won't stop anything. 1) search for yourself, I'm not spreading these links and I'm not very fond of the behavior, and I could write an article on how it is taught on both sides of the political spectrum. Tit-for-tat is scary at a personal level.
ralfd 13y ago
What if he was once donating to an anti-gun campaign and the NRA advocating its members to replace Firefox as browsers (or vice versa)? This is a witch hunt.
piyush_soni 13y ago
Again, views of an individual don't necessarily have to match the view of an organization. That's why they have a separate mission statement for an organization. Otherwise you'd just pick up the mission of any one of the employees. This is ridiculous to force him to step down by causing public humiliation.

rossjudson 13y ago

I can't help but wish that the gay community would focus its attention on asshats like "Supervisor" Eugene Delgaudio, instead of Brendan Eich. Delgaudio is an elected official with a virulent anti-gay rhetoric (in addition to being ethically challenged, and having avoided criminal prosecution by the narrowest of loopholes in Virginia law).

general_failure 13y ago

Well, this is exactly what people wanted after the learnt about this stance and his reactions. I don't understand why you find this worrying. It's mob justice but justice nevertheless. As a CEO, he simply has to accept and support popular opinion and views. That's how people in top management survive.

vacri 13y ago

Apparently many Mozilla supporters... bully I would wager that plenty of those opposing Eich don't actually use Mozilla products. Chrome is the most popular browser, not Firefox, and their other products aren't monopolies either. Of the several screeds I read against Eich, not one of them said "We currently use a Mozilla product and now no longer will".

camus2 13y ago
I would wager that plenty of those opposing Eich don't actually use Mozilla products. but their relatives might use Firefox, and these relatives might listen those who oppose Eich because they are family...that's called social effect.
- jrmcauliffe 13y ago
  I would guess the proportion of non-tech family that equate firefox/'The Internet' with this set of circumstances approaches zero.

deveac 13y ago

Apparently many Mozilla supporters seem to think it is okay to bully a qualified person out of his job only for his political views He was not qualified for his job. Mozilla is a non-profit organization founded on ideals. It has a social and ethical mission as opposed to a directive to earn profits for shareholders. His social views made him unqualified to lead a company whose purpose was social good. There are plenty of for profit businesses that do not fit that mold where he would be a better fit. Additionally, he was not bullied. He gave publicly supported both in words and tangible resources initiatives to deny equality to others and people within his organization and without responded vocally and negatively. If that falls within the definition of bullying (I don't consider vocally calling out bigotry and intolerance as applicable here) then I'd argue he was a far bigger bully than those outraged by his actions and appointment.

lholden 13y ago

I have a hard time when segregation gets labeled as a "political view". Segregation is a lot more than a political issue, but also a human rights issue. That $1000 actively helped pass a bill that prevented consenting adult couples who wished to spend their lives together from having the same legal rights as everyone else. His donation in this case was more than having a political view, but actually helped to promote segregation. Why would I want someone who has tried to take away my rights as the CEO of a company that I care about? If it was just his "view", this would not be the issue that it has been.

xahrepap 13y ago

I agree with what you said. I hate it when "Free Speech" is viewed as a one way street. For example: > Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard. Ok, Mozilla believes in free speech? Not according to how they have behaved. So why was their last CEO canned (oh... he "stepped down"... whatever)? If they really believed in free speech they would've left his opinion his opinion, and judged his capacity as CEO based on his work. None of what I have read or heard about all this actually offensive until I read that sentence in the report.

kjsingh 13y ago

Agreed. And this way we are surely not helping him change his views. Or be more inclusive.

shinratdr 13y ago

> I am a strong supporter of gay marriage I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true. I would argue the very first criteria for someone who "strong[ly]" supports gay marriage would be that they consider it a civil rights issue and not a political one. Bigotry isn't a sacrosanct opinion, and just because politicians have debated about it doesn't make an issue solely political.

homulilly 13y ago

You can't really compare large scale oppression to individual inconvenience. Besides, being denied equal rights and being denied the opportunity to be CEO of Mozilla are obviously not even remotely comparable.

nashequilibrium 13y ago

Political views are about allocating scarce resources when confronted with unlimited wants and needs. The act of paying to deny a group of people basic rights that all other groups enjoy is an act of discrimination. Now, a company is a corporate entity that has a brand identity, which it continuously communicates to its audience and the message that Mozilla's sends out is in total contradiction to Brendan Eich's actions. When the message the Ceo sends out grabs more attention and is detrimental to the corporate identity of a company, then it is time to part ways, as this will manifest into a huge consumer base loss. Why? Because consumers align themselves even stronger with corporations that push charity, tolerance and freedom as their main identity like Tom's shoes. The biggest sin a company can do in a highly competitive market is to alienate their most vocal consumer base, where they no longer see their principles reflected in the company's identity. Mozilla is now bigger than Brendan Eich.

dredmorbius 13y ago

I'm leery of politically-correct thinking, as well, but I feel Eich had to go, and he made the right decision. The quote by Baker which Swisher highlighted nails it: Eich had become a distraction and his presence at the helm, and as a figurehead for Mozilla, was a distraction. The fact that Mozilla itself is a symbol for freedom from oppression also doesn't sit well with Eich's political beliefs, and more importantly, activities. There's also the fact that times and beliefs can change: I'm not a believer in absolutes of ethical and moral values. Often very quickly and disconcertingly for those who live through those changes. I can remember when discrimination and abuse against gays and others was simply part of the landscape and widely accepted (as it still is in too many places). But within the cultural, creative, and intellectual cores of the world, that's no longer the case.