6 ms·

So Barack Obama, the President of the US, was against gay marriage in 2008; I'm confused as to why he gets a pass here, but the head of Mozilla doesn't?

Aloisius 13y ago
He evolved. Brendan did not.
- samelawrence 13y ago
  I think it's easy to also say he lied. Probably before, and his support of gay marriage is his true heart... which is nice, so he's got that going for him. But, he probably lied.
waterfowl 13y ago
So were a majority of voters in California in 2008. I think anyone hiring in California would be an ~evil homophobe~ if they didn't screen their applicants on their prop 8 vote these days. But really I have no idea why Obama(or javascript) gets a pass. The thing that is so frustrating to me as someone who lives in a liberal hivemindy area(DC) and works in a hivemindy field(tech) is that "opposing marriage equality"(which is super biased phrasing) is NOT a fringe or rare opinion in a vast majority of the country. People need to quit equating this to being a Nazi or a 60s era segregationist or all kinds of things which are so incredibly different.
mkr-hn 13y ago
He didn't get a pass. A lot of people made a huge issue out of it from the day he announced to the day he changed his views. He also didn't stand in the way of the advancing equality movement while he mulled it over. Brendan Eich did, to the tune of $1000.
- 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
  Actually, with respect to civil rights, acts of omission matter >= acts of commission. Therefore the POTUS withholding support is a far, far greater impact than some dude contributing $1000. Yet I imagine a super-majority of the people pitchforking Eich also voted for Obama. Whatever justifications they had -- "lesser of two evils", "he's right about most other things" -- should apply to both people. But of course they don't, because some people apparently need a monthly Paula Deen or Kony or #CancelColbert controversy to serve as their moral compass. By the way, I fully support marriage equality. But it feels wrong that I even need to state that like it's some sort of Pledge of Allegiance litmus test.
  - worklogin 13y ago
    Furthermore, this man supported a controversial cause to the tune of peanuts worth of money, and his job is to run a tech non-profit. There are probably thousands of of other companies and people HN'ers interact with every day that have done worse things than this man. It's a point about which to rally; it's not that important in the grand scheme.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Actually, with respect to civil rights, acts of omission matter >= acts of commission. No, I think actually using (or advocating using) power of government to discriminate is a bigger problem than merely failing to oppose such abuses, though both are bad. But, in any case, this is irrelevant because: > Therefore the POTUS withholding support On Prop. 8, the President didn't withhold support from the side that Eich spent money opposing -- Obama opposed Prop. 8 specifically and measures to entrench prohibition of same-sex marriage in Constitutions generally in 2008.
    - 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
      Well I believe it was just under 2 years ago, May 2012, that Obama first said that he personally approved of it -- but still thought it should be left up to the states. Text and video: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/dissecting-president-obamas-evolution-gay-marriage/story?id=18792720 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/dissecting-president-oba... Even if he also said Prop 8 is bad (?), I think overall he has withheld far more than $1000 worth of support for marriage equality. I don't understand people who are willing to overlook that in Obama's case, but not Eich's. Not only is that inconsistent, it's even more confusing when you consider that Obama was elected to represent people's views on political matters, but Eich was not. I voted for Obama. I deeply support marriage equality. I don't know Eich well at all, but if the Mozilla board thought he was qualified to lead the organization I think he should get more than 2 weeks to demonstrate that. (Also at this point some board members ought to resign, because they've demonstrated they can't handle one of their few non-trivial responsibilities.)
      - kenjackson 13y ago
- zobzu 13y ago
  Obviously he's still president. So, yeah.
- nsxwolf 13y ago
  They made such a huge issue out of it they elected him president.
gwern 13y ago
Because he's recanted, and is too powerful to assail anyway. 'Who, Whom?'
twoodfin 13y ago
I can understand why he gets a pass: He probably was only publicly against it in 2008 in order to win an election, and when it was politically convenient he had a "change of heart" and has repented. What I can't understand is why anyone who espouses the view that opposition to gay marriage is akin to the most heinous racial bigotry could possibly have voted for Barack Obama in 2008. I'm a pretty reliable GOP voter, but I wouldn't think twice about voting for a Democrat for president if the Republican candidate expressed support for segregation! I'd vote for a third party if they both did. My point is that it's basically free to express outrage at Eich. Six years ago (when Eich actually made his donation), a lot of folks here and at Mozilla who are so worked up about this issue now were not so unforgiving about it when it came to getting "their guy" in the White House.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  Left-leaning folks are going to be gun-shy about third parties for a while. The memories of 2000 with Gore/Nader in Florida aren't fading all that fast.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    So there's no view a Democrat could express that wouldn't disqualify him in left-leaning folks' minds? That would be depressing. Winning isn't everything.
    - pkroll 13y ago
      That depends entirely on the expressed views of the person they're running against. I accept anyone I vote for is going to do things I don't like. Maybe most things. Avoiding the vote because there's no candidate that's "perfect" leads to people getting in that will do EVEN MORE things I don't like, so while winning isn't everything, it's a lot.
    - ceejayoz 13y ago
      Winning isn't everything, no. A "loyal opposition" is an important thing - I'd love to see Eisenhower/Goldwater Republicans balancing out the Democrats. Handing over the reins to the crazies, though, is significantly dangerous, and all candidates are going to have downsides. Obama's been wrong on gay marriage in the past, but it's quite clear that his administration has been far better for gay rights than a Republican one would have been.
dnissley 13y ago
Context partly. Think about it: Mozilla vs Population of the US, certainly there are massive differences of opinion between these groups. Mozilla is clearly a group that holds the rights of LGBT people in high regard. The population of the US as a whole -- less so. And politics partly. I don't think anyone without their heads in the sand actually believed that Obama was against gay marriage. He was clearly playing the game and paying due lip service in order to get the votes he needed, like any politician. Eich refused to play that game.
thrownaway2424 13y ago
Obama presides over a nation who are basically split on the issue. Eich was the CEO of an organization, members of which are overwhelmingly in favor.
ebbv 13y ago
Because he changed his stance. Brendan refuses to do so, he's defending his bigotry and standing by it.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
Who said he gets a free pass? Our election system is deliberately designed and maintained so that only two parties--only two candidates--matter. That sucks, and I'd change it if I could, but in the meantime my options are to either stay home, which accomplishes nothing; vote for a third-party candidate, which shows admirable idealism but is also unlikely to accomplish anything; or vote for the lesser of two evils, which at least has a chance of producing some of the results I want.
- hippoman 13y ago
  This is the fallacy that maintains the system you complain about. Voting for a 3rd party supports that party and gains them publicity. Just because they don't win (this time) doesn't mean it's wasted. By your reasoning, any vote for a losing party is wasted, so you should only vote according to the latest poll figures. However all options are guaranteed to produce many of the results you want. The greater of two evils still outlaws murder and theft and still enforces contracts, and all sorts of useful laws, just like the lesser of two evils does.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    How well did third parties do after Nader in 2000, or Perot in the 90's? This seems like a glaring counter-example to your argument, don't you think?
    - hippoman 13y ago
      Nader did well following Perot. Eventually one of these might make it and if they also act to weaken the two-party system, the floodgates could open like they have in other countries. But none of that can happen if people who don't like the two-party system keep voting for it anyway just because of petty bipartisan tribalism.
      - hackinthebochs 13y ago
        No. Perot did around 15% in his first run (with 10s of millions of his own money), followed up by 5%. Nader did in the low single digits. There is no momentum to be had. They do exactly as well as their money will allow. Third party candidates have no shot. Look up first-past-the-post voting. It is impossible for a viable third party to do well in such a voting system.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> So Barack Obama, the President of the US, was against gay marriage in 2008; I'm confused as to why he gets a pass here (1) Barack Obama didn't contribute money to Prop. 8, and in fact specifically spoke out against it and similar measures in 2008, e.g., "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America's about." [1] (2) Barack Obama's wasn't appointed CEO of Mozilla Corporation, so the people that think that Eich made a bad head of Mozilla because of that don't have that basis to object, and (3) Barack Obama's position on gay marriage has changed since 2008, and he has spoken on that evolution at length. [1] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/
- smsm42 13y ago
  Barack Obama was appointed the President of the United States, which is a bit higher position that CEO of Mozilla, with all due respect to Firefox and all. Still nobody of the people who waged war on Eich did not say anything remotely like that about Obama the whole time while he was publicly opposing it. And if you think that President's position is worth less than $1000 in cash, you don't really understand what President in the US means. The whole point is that Obama was "our guy" and Eich was not. That's why Obama got the pass and was patiently allowed to "evolve", but Eich got the "enemy of the nation" treatment.

Aloisius 13y ago

He evolved. Brendan did not.

samelawrence 13y ago
I think it's easy to also say he lied. Probably before, and his support of gay marriage is his true heart... which is nice, so he's got that going for him. But, he probably lied.

waterfowl 13y ago

So were a majority of voters in California in 2008. I think anyone hiring in California would be an ~evil homophobe~ if they didn't screen their applicants on their prop 8 vote these days. But really I have no idea why Obama(or javascript) gets a pass. The thing that is so frustrating to me as someone who lives in a liberal hivemindy area(DC) and works in a hivemindy field(tech) is that "opposing marriage equality"(which is super biased phrasing) is NOT a fringe or rare opinion in a vast majority of the country. People need to quit equating this to being a Nazi or a 60s era segregationist or all kinds of things which are so incredibly different.

mkr-hn 13y ago

He didn't get a pass. A lot of people made a huge issue out of it from the day he announced to the day he changed his views. He also didn't stand in the way of the advancing equality movement while he mulled it over. Brendan Eich did, to the tune of $1000.

6cxs2hd6 13y ago
Actually, with respect to civil rights, acts of omission matter >= acts of commission. Therefore the POTUS withholding support is a far, far greater impact than some dude contributing $1000. Yet I imagine a super-majority of the people pitchforking Eich also voted for Obama. Whatever justifications they had -- "lesser of two evils", "he's right about most other things" -- should apply to both people. But of course they don't, because some people apparently need a monthly Paula Deen or Kony or #CancelColbert controversy to serve as their moral compass. By the way, I fully support marriage equality. But it feels wrong that I even need to state that like it's some sort of Pledge of Allegiance litmus test.
- worklogin 13y ago
  Furthermore, this man supported a controversial cause to the tune of peanuts worth of money, and his job is to run a tech non-profit. There are probably thousands of of other companies and people HN'ers interact with every day that have done worse things than this man. It's a point about which to rally; it's not that important in the grand scheme.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Actually, with respect to civil rights, acts of omission matter >= acts of commission. No, I think actually using (or advocating using) power of government to discriminate is a bigger problem than merely failing to oppose such abuses, though both are bad. But, in any case, this is irrelevant because: > Therefore the POTUS withholding support On Prop. 8, the President didn't withhold support from the side that Eich spent money opposing -- Obama opposed Prop. 8 specifically and measures to entrench prohibition of same-sex marriage in Constitutions generally in 2008.
  - 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
    Well I believe it was just under 2 years ago, May 2012, that Obama first said that he personally approved of it -- but still thought it should be left up to the states. Text and video: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/dissecting-president-obamas-evolution-gay-marriage/story?id=18792720 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/dissecting-president-oba... Even if he also said Prop 8 is bad (?), I think overall he has withheld far more than $1000 worth of support for marriage equality. I don't understand people who are willing to overlook that in Obama's case, but not Eich's. Not only is that inconsistent, it's even more confusing when you consider that Obama was elected to represent people's views on political matters, but Eich was not. I voted for Obama. I deeply support marriage equality. I don't know Eich well at all, but if the Mozilla board thought he was qualified to lead the organization I think he should get more than 2 weeks to demonstrate that. (Also at this point some board members ought to resign, because they've demonstrated they can't handle one of their few non-trivial responsibilities.)
    - kenjackson 13y ago
zobzu 13y ago
Obviously he's still president. So, yeah.
nsxwolf 13y ago
They made such a huge issue out of it they elected him president.

gwern 13y ago

Because he's recanted, and is too powerful to assail anyway. 'Who, Whom?'

twoodfin 13y ago

I can understand why he gets a pass: He probably was only publicly against it in 2008 in order to win an election, and when it was politically convenient he had a "change of heart" and has repented. What I can't understand is why anyone who espouses the view that opposition to gay marriage is akin to the most heinous racial bigotry could possibly have voted for Barack Obama in 2008. I'm a pretty reliable GOP voter, but I wouldn't think twice about voting for a Democrat for president if the Republican candidate expressed support for segregation! I'd vote for a third party if they both did. My point is that it's basically free to express outrage at Eich. Six years ago (when Eich actually made his donation), a lot of folks here and at Mozilla who are so worked up about this issue now were not so unforgiving about it when it came to getting "their guy" in the White House.

ceejayoz 13y ago
Left-leaning folks are going to be gun-shy about third parties for a while. The memories of 2000 with Gore/Nader in Florida aren't fading all that fast.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  So there's no view a Democrat could express that wouldn't disqualify him in left-leaning folks' minds? That would be depressing. Winning isn't everything.
  - pkroll 13y ago
    That depends entirely on the expressed views of the person they're running against. I accept anyone I vote for is going to do things I don't like. Maybe most things. Avoiding the vote because there's no candidate that's "perfect" leads to people getting in that will do EVEN MORE things I don't like, so while winning isn't everything, it's a lot.
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    Winning isn't everything, no. A "loyal opposition" is an important thing - I'd love to see Eisenhower/Goldwater Republicans balancing out the Democrats. Handing over the reins to the crazies, though, is significantly dangerous, and all candidates are going to have downsides. Obama's been wrong on gay marriage in the past, but it's quite clear that his administration has been far better for gay rights than a Republican one would have been.

dnissley 13y ago

Context partly. Think about it: Mozilla vs Population of the US, certainly there are massive differences of opinion between these groups. Mozilla is clearly a group that holds the rights of LGBT people in high regard. The population of the US as a whole -- less so. And politics partly. I don't think anyone without their heads in the sand actually believed that Obama was against gay marriage. He was clearly playing the game and paying due lip service in order to get the votes he needed, like any politician. Eich refused to play that game.

thrownaway2424 13y ago

Obama presides over a nation who are basically split on the issue. Eich was the CEO of an organization, members of which are overwhelmingly in favor.

ebbv 13y ago

Because he changed his stance. Brendan refuses to do so, he's defending his bigotry and standing by it.

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

Who said he gets a free pass? Our election system is deliberately designed and maintained so that only two parties--only two candidates--matter. That sucks, and I'd change it if I could, but in the meantime my options are to either stay home, which accomplishes nothing; vote for a third-party candidate, which shows admirable idealism but is also unlikely to accomplish anything; or vote for the lesser of two evils, which at least has a chance of producing some of the results I want.

hippoman 13y ago
This is the fallacy that maintains the system you complain about. Voting for a 3rd party supports that party and gains them publicity. Just because they don't win (this time) doesn't mean it's wasted. By your reasoning, any vote for a losing party is wasted, so you should only vote according to the latest poll figures. However all options are guaranteed to produce many of the results you want. The greater of two evils still outlaws murder and theft and still enforces contracts, and all sorts of useful laws, just like the lesser of two evils does.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  How well did third parties do after Nader in 2000, or Perot in the 90's? This seems like a glaring counter-example to your argument, don't you think?
  - hippoman 13y ago
    Nader did well following Perot. Eventually one of these might make it and if they also act to weaken the two-party system, the floodgates could open like they have in other countries. But none of that can happen if people who don't like the two-party system keep voting for it anyway just because of petty bipartisan tribalism.
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      No. Perot did around 15% in his first run (with 10s of millions of his own money), followed up by 5%. Nader did in the low single digits. There is no momentum to be had. They do exactly as well as their money will allow. Third party candidates have no shot. Look up first-past-the-post voting. It is impossible for a viable third party to do well in such a voting system.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> So Barack Obama, the President of the US, was against gay marriage in 2008; I'm confused as to why he gets a pass here (1) Barack Obama didn't contribute money to Prop. 8, and in fact specifically spoke out against it and similar measures in 2008, e.g., "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America's about." [1] (2) Barack Obama's wasn't appointed CEO of Mozilla Corporation, so the people that think that Eich made a bad head of Mozilla because of that don't have that basis to object, and (3) Barack Obama's position on gay marriage has changed since 2008, and he has spoken on that evolution at length. [1] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/

smsm42 13y ago
Barack Obama was appointed the President of the United States, which is a bit higher position that CEO of Mozilla, with all due respect to Firefox and all. Still nobody of the people who waged war on Eich did not say anything remotely like that about Obama the whole time while he was publicly opposing it. And if you think that President's position is worth less than $1000 in cash, you don't really understand what President in the US means. The whole point is that Obama was "our guy" and Eich was not. That's why Obama got the pass and was patiently allowed to "evolve", but Eich got the "enemy of the nation" treatment.