4 ms·

All of this over a $1,000 donation, apparently. I think it's a bad cause and a bad donation, and I don't have any sympathy at all for the anti-gay-marriage typ

All of this over a $1,000 donation, apparently. I think it's a bad cause and a bad donation, and I don't have any sympathy at all for the anti-gay-marriage types, but it's crazy to me to hang someone over a thousand dollar donation. What percentage of the total money donated to prop 8 do you think that represented?

wyclif 13y ago
Eich didn't make that donation yesterday, you know. But I agree. He made a small donation to a political cause. Are we going to start ritually sacrificing people who don't line up with our personal causes and opinions? I think this sets a draconian precedent. If this is where the culture in the Valley is headed, I'm incredibly glad I'm not a part of it.
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  Are we going to start ritually sacrificing people who don't line up with our personal causes and opinions? No - we are hopefully going to continue objecting to the appointment of people whose personal views are incompatible with the values of the organisation they are supposed to represent. That's totally legitimate, and I absolutely fail to see what is wrong with doing so.
  - mbillie1 13y ago
    I guess a personal donation, to me, of a material-but-not-enormous amount, toes the line between "personal views" being thrown out there in the public, and things that are pretty much ones own business. I have no problem with an organization saying "we don't like Mr. Eich's frequent outspoken rants against homosexuals" (if there were any), but the fact that the guy wrote a $1,000 check one time? Eh... to me this approaches the territory of getting mad at someone for laughing at a homosexual joke. Poor taste, I don't agree with it, but I don't necessarily think it ought to be treated as a public representation of ones personal views.
  - wyclif 13y ago
    A software developer and friend of mine wrote this just now, upon hearing the news. I thought I'd share it here because I thought it was apt: 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. You also need free speech to discuss what equality means, but apparently that is no longer possible; our culture-makers have now decided there is a univocal conception of equality that must be imposed on everyone.
    - matthewmacleod 13y ago
      You also need free speech to discuss what equality means, but apparently that is no longer possible; our culture-makers have now decided there is a univocal conception of equality that must be imposed on everyone. This is a gross misreading of the situation. It's actually pretty simple: - Eitch is appointed to important, visible community leadership position - His personal views are incompatible with those of the organisation and actively harmful to many members of that community - He does not engage with or deal with this controversy, such as by apologising for his actions - People in the community who are directly or indirectly affected by his actions object to the appointment - He resigns. I'm really, really struggling to figure out what exactly you guys who are banging on about "cultural imposition" and other hand wavy nonsense actually think should happen in a situation like this. Is the suggestion that nobody should ever complain about anything? Should we complain, but avoid calling for resignation? Should we turn a blind eye to people who are trying to strip civil rights from us, our family, or our friends?
      - wyclif 13y ago
        Call it left-wing anti-liberalism: the idea, captured by Herbert Marcuse in his 1965 essay“Repressive Tolerance,” that social justice demands curbs on freedom of expression. “[I]t is possible to define the direction in which prevailing institutions, policies, opinions would have to be changed in order to improve the chance of a peace which is not identical with cold war and a little hot war, and a satisfaction of needs which does not feed on poverty, oppression, and exploitation,” he wrote. “Consequently, it is also possible to identify policies, opinions, movements which would promote this chance, and those which would do the opposite. Suppression of the regressive ones is a prerequisite for the strengthening of the progressive ones.” Note here both the belief that correct opinions can be dispassionately identified, and the blithe confidence in the wisdom of those empowered to do the suppressing. This kind of thinking is only possible at certain moments: when liberalism seems to have failed but the right is not yet in charge. At such times, old-fashioned liberal values like free speech and robust, open debate seem like tainted adjuncts of an oppressive system, and it’s still possible for radicals to believe that the ideas suppressed as hateful won’t be their own. http://www.thenation.com/blog/179160/cancelcolbert-and-return-anti-liberal-left http://www.thenation.com/blog/179160/cancelcolbert-and-retur...
bdcravens 13y ago
Despite the general attitude, nothing has been won. Whomever they replace him with may have more hateful views towards gay marriage, they just won't be on the public record as having taken a side. America is filled with business leaders that privately participate in religions where gay marriage would be frowned upon - what do you think their personal opinions are?

wyclif 13y ago

Eich didn't make that donation yesterday, you know. But I agree. He made a small donation to a political cause. Are we going to start ritually sacrificing people who don't line up with our personal causes and opinions? I think this sets a draconian precedent. If this is where the culture in the Valley is headed, I'm incredibly glad I'm not a part of it.

matthewmacleod 13y ago
Are we going to start ritually sacrificing people who don't line up with our personal causes and opinions? No - we are hopefully going to continue objecting to the appointment of people whose personal views are incompatible with the values of the organisation they are supposed to represent. That's totally legitimate, and I absolutely fail to see what is wrong with doing so.
- mbillie1 13y ago
  I guess a personal donation, to me, of a material-but-not-enormous amount, toes the line between "personal views" being thrown out there in the public, and things that are pretty much ones own business. I have no problem with an organization saying "we don't like Mr. Eich's frequent outspoken rants against homosexuals" (if there were any), but the fact that the guy wrote a $1,000 check one time? Eh... to me this approaches the territory of getting mad at someone for laughing at a homosexual joke. Poor taste, I don't agree with it, but I don't necessarily think it ought to be treated as a public representation of ones personal views.
- wyclif 13y ago
  A software developer and friend of mine wrote this just now, upon hearing the news. I thought I'd share it here because I thought it was apt: 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. You also need free speech to discuss what equality means, but apparently that is no longer possible; our culture-makers have now decided there is a univocal conception of equality that must be imposed on everyone.
  - matthewmacleod 13y ago
    You also need free speech to discuss what equality means, but apparently that is no longer possible; our culture-makers have now decided there is a univocal conception of equality that must be imposed on everyone. This is a gross misreading of the situation. It's actually pretty simple: - Eitch is appointed to important, visible community leadership position - His personal views are incompatible with those of the organisation and actively harmful to many members of that community - He does not engage with or deal with this controversy, such as by apologising for his actions - People in the community who are directly or indirectly affected by his actions object to the appointment - He resigns. I'm really, really struggling to figure out what exactly you guys who are banging on about "cultural imposition" and other hand wavy nonsense actually think should happen in a situation like this. Is the suggestion that nobody should ever complain about anything? Should we complain, but avoid calling for resignation? Should we turn a blind eye to people who are trying to strip civil rights from us, our family, or our friends?
    - wyclif 13y ago
      Call it left-wing anti-liberalism: the idea, captured by Herbert Marcuse in his 1965 essay“Repressive Tolerance,” that social justice demands curbs on freedom of expression. “[I]t is possible to define the direction in which prevailing institutions, policies, opinions would have to be changed in order to improve the chance of a peace which is not identical with cold war and a little hot war, and a satisfaction of needs which does not feed on poverty, oppression, and exploitation,” he wrote. “Consequently, it is also possible to identify policies, opinions, movements which would promote this chance, and those which would do the opposite. Suppression of the regressive ones is a prerequisite for the strengthening of the progressive ones.” Note here both the belief that correct opinions can be dispassionately identified, and the blithe confidence in the wisdom of those empowered to do the suppressing. This kind of thinking is only possible at certain moments: when liberalism seems to have failed but the right is not yet in charge. At such times, old-fashioned liberal values like free speech and robust, open debate seem like tainted adjuncts of an oppressive system, and it’s still possible for radicals to believe that the ideas suppressed as hateful won’t be their own. http://www.thenation.com/blog/179160/cancelcolbert-and-return-anti-liberal-left http://www.thenation.com/blog/179160/cancelcolbert-and-retur...

bdcravens 13y ago

Despite the general attitude, nothing has been won. Whomever they replace him with may have more hateful views towards gay marriage, they just won't be on the public record as having taken a side. America is filled with business leaders that privately participate in religions where gay marriage would be frowned upon - what do you think their personal opinions are?