5 ms·

I'm really struggling to decide where to come down on this issue. It absolutely is a bigoted opinion that he holds and essentially comes down to denying a grou

I'm really struggling to decide where to come down on this issue. It absolutely is a bigoted opinion that he holds and essentially comes down to denying a group of people happiness for no good reason. It is extremely unlikely that these beliefs would affect Eich's job performance, though it is probable that holding those beliefs would affect the performance of Mozilla contributors - and for a group (corporation?) which relies on volunteers to function, this is an important consideration. Plus, a big part of Mozilla's modus operandi is holding itself to a higher standard - and I don't see why that shouldn't apply to social issues as well, especially for those which Mozilla's community deems important. I have seen arguments that this is only a vocal minority making a fuss - I would imagine that the vast majority of those involved in Mozilla believe in equal rights for gay people, and many are upset (I am upset that he seems resolute in his views and refuses to have a conversation about it, for instance). I do feel bad for the guy, though - it seems like he played a massive part in getting Mozilla to where it was today - but he partially brought this on himself, and not just by way of a $1000 donation 6 years ago, but also how he reacted to it recently.

stcredzero 13y ago
It absolutely is a bigoted opinion that he holds and essentially comes down to denying a group of people happiness for no good reason. Yes, but note how you have framed the situation. What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness? Who then is the arbiter of whose opinion is right? Somehow I don't think it's a good idea for democratic processes to label the side that is wrong as "horrible people." Otherwise, why have a democratic process at all? he partially brought this on himself, and not just by way of a $1000 donation 6 years ago, but also how he reacted to it recently. What specifically did he do recently?
- jeswin 13y ago
  What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness? Well, if a person sincerely believed that black people should not be granted equal rights would you pick him as CEO? I'm pretty sure you won't; gay rights are the same thing. I really admire the technical work Eich does, and benefit tremendously from it. However, his views on gay rights are disappointing.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    if a person sincerely believed that black people should not be granted equal rights You got the analogy incorrect. What if that person sincerely believed that the policy preserved equal rights?
- ChristianBundy 13y ago
  Recently, he declined to comment on the issue or address whether his beliefs or motives had changed – which, to many people, meant that he stood behind his actions and genuinely believed that same-sex couples should be oppressed.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    Hmmm. I think that if someone is potentially headed into the midst of some public controversy, and they decline to comment, that's pretty understandable. The fact that so much energy has been devoted to this -- that 6 years ago some CEO made a donation to a political group people don't like -- indicates something broken in the prioritization of effort in US political life. Seems like they didn't go after Mr. Eich so much because of the severity of what he did, but rather that they were able to get to him. (Seriously -- Brendan Eich > the Koch Brothers?)
    - ChristianBundy 13y ago
      They went after him on the principle of what he did (a principle he probably still stands behind), and would probably go after the Koch brothers if anyone had any leverage on them.
      - stcredzero 13y ago
        a principle he probably... When a group starts throwing its power around on the basis of "probably," it's time to start wondering.
- pmjordan 13y ago
  What specifically did he do recently? He was interviewed. To be honest I don't know why he agreed to it as I don't see how he could have thought that steadfastly dodging the issue would improve the situation. http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-could-hurt-firefox-cause-q-a/ http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-... I was on the fence as to whether he should be the public head of Mozilla before reading this (I disagree with him on the issue in question, but I suspect many hold beliefs that I don't agree with), but in that interview he just comes across as an arse. If the transcript is faithful to what was said, I'd say the interviewer gave him plenty of chances for reconciliation, and Eich refused to take them.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    He was not under any obligation to this "reconciliation." One could also argue that not answering in a situation like this is a principled stand on his right to privately hold a political opinion. In the US, it's legal to hold opinions that are "wrong." It should also be socially acceptable, otherwise we are creating a social climate where rational discussion becomes impossible.
- glesica 13y ago
  > What specifically did he do recently? Refused to apologize, even fake apologize, meaning he hasn't changed his views. He also came across as weirdly combative, trying to justify his homophobia by pointing out that homophobia is still the norm in Malaysia or something along those lines. He wasn't smooth about it at all. > Somehow I don't think it's a good idea for democratic processes to label the side that is wrong as "horrible people." There are degrees of "horrible people", and in my opinion Brendan Eich does fall on that spectrum, though admittedly he's not even close to the worst of the worst, but he makes the cut. That's my two cents though, take it or leave it. I personally feel pretty strongly about gay rights, so there's that. > What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness? I think this is a flawed argument. Bigots almost never seem to believe themselves to be bigots. They think they're saving gay peoples' souls (without ever asking if they want their souls saved) or various things like that. Or they, maybe not overtly, don't really see gay people (or whatever group we're talking about) as real people with feelings. That's what is so insidious about bigotry, it's not a Lord of the Rings thing where the villain (who conveniently wears black and lives in a scary castle) stands up and says "Muhahaha I'm going to make everyone miserable!". Instead, the villain says "I'm going to help all of you out by forcing you to be just like me, trust me, things will be better this way!".
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    Bigots almost never seem to believe themselves to be bigots. Also, the powerful unjust never believe themselves to be unjust. That's what is so insidious about bigotry, it's not a Lord of the Rings thing where the villain (who conveniently wears black and lives in a scary castle) stands up and says "Muhahaha I'm going to make everyone miserable!". Instead, the villain says "I'm going to help all of you out by forcing you to be just like me, trust me, things will be better this way!". Seems to me that the same level of insidiousness applies to insisting that everyone else kowtows to your particular opinion. Isn't insisting that Brendan Eich express some particular opinion effectively insisting that, "I'm going to help you out by forcing you to be just like me..."?
    - batiudrami 13y ago
- ChrisGaudreau 13y ago
  What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness? Supporters of slavery used the Bible to justify their beliefs. They did not believe it was about bigotry. They thought slavery was in fact providing economic opportunity to slaves, and they believed their own livelihood depended upon it. Supporters of slavery thought about it in economic and religious terms. If the CEO of my workplace believes in slavery but truly doesn't believe it is immoral, do I not have the right to speak out? If you believe in slavery or nazism, that's fine. You're allowed to believe in those things. But we are allowed to express that you are wrong for holding those beliefs, and we can choose whether or not we support bigoted viewpoints by purchasing your products. Using one's right to free speech to oppose bigoted speech is not impeding anybody's rights.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    But does "opposing speech" have to include getting someone fired for something they did 6 years ago? Opposing speech in an open democratic society shouldn't have the effect of oppressing the speech of others -- even if such actions are technically legal. Otherwise, it becomes the "open democratic society for the people whose opinions I like." Using one's right to free speech to oppose bigoted speech is not impeding anybody's rights. This is technically true, but the way such an idea was applied in this case lacks something of the spirit of free speech in a truly tolerant and open society.
    - ChrisGaudreau 13y ago
      Well, he didn't say he regrets his actions from 6 years ago. It's kind of like adultery. If I cheated on you 6 years ago but never apologized for it or expressed regret for it, should you feel comfortable with me today? What if I wasn't clear about whether I believe adultery is okay? What if I wasn't clear about whether I am still committing adultery? The beliefs he holds are still current, as far as anyone can tell. If they aren't, I'm sure he would have said so. This is technically true, but the way such an idea was applied in this case lacks something of the spirit of free speech in a truly tolerant and open society. Yeah, some gay rights activists were a bit over the top and maybe should try a bit harder to understand the other side. But it is an emotional issue. If I feel that somebody is trying to use the might of the government to take away my rights, it's going to be difficult to sympathize with and understand why they would do that.
blisterpeanuts 13y ago
Almost everyone has bigoted opinions on one subject or another. Suppose that a devout Muslim is hired by the Mozilla Foundation. He says nothing of his beliefs in his interview. He wears jeans, T-shirts, and sneakers, and he looks like any other modern guy who happens to be from the Middle East or South Asia. Should he be fired once it's discovered he's religious? Should he have been asked a bunch of probing questions--do you beat your wife? Do you believe homosexuals should be stoned to death? Do you consider Jews spawn of the devil? Should women who are raped be killed by their families? Are there times when suicide bombing is justified? These are all Koranic teachings held to be literally true by extremists, and put into practice by thousands of people every year. You could ask similar questions of a fundamentalist Christian. You could ask a black man whether he refers to whites as "crackers" behind their back. The fact is, no one's perfect, everyone has some baggage, and we all have to get along. I think this whole Eich affair is a sad and nasty example of intolerance run amok. It doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong about his support for Prop 8. There is no right or wrong. There's only agree or disagree. Diversity and tolerance are two way streets. You can't pretend to be tolerant, then fire people or demonize those who don't strictly adhere to your political beliefs. That's a genie that can't be put back in the bottle, once you release it.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  Diversity and tolerance are two way streets. You can't pretend to be tolerant, then fire people or demonize those who don't strictly adhere to your political beliefs. That's a genie that can't be put back in the bottle, once you release it. You can, actually, and it's required. This is known as the paradox of tolerance. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tolerance http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tolerance
  - blisterpeanuts 13y ago
    OK, that's an interesting concept, and when I'm more awake, I'll have to read about it.
Jugurtha 13y ago
>I'm really struggling to decide where to come down on this issue. It absolutely is a bigoted opinion that he holds and essentially comes down to denying a group of people happiness for no good reason. Still, it's his opinion. It's a bigoted opinion to think you can deny someone the right to have his bigoted opinion. This is a serious matter. This opens the door to: You either think this exact same way and have these exact opinions, or you're a bad person and face the consequences. It was a donation on his own name, not on Mozilla's behalf. It was a donation for lobbying against gay marriage. Pro-gay marriage people donated money too. They are even denying him to play by the rules they are playing by. It's like playing basketball and you take off your hoop and demand the other team to play normally. It's not fair.
- batiudrami 13y ago
  I don't have an issue with him holding that opinion (though some people obviously do). I just don't see why his opinion should be allowed to affect others. By contributing money to a campaign which aims to make gay marriage illegal he is actively hurting gay people. That, for me at least, is a problem. It's more like "I think it should be illegal to play without a basketball hoop because then it doesn't make any sense to me, because basketball is defined as requiring a hoop".

stcredzero 13y ago

It absolutely is a bigoted opinion that he holds and essentially comes down to denying a group of people happiness for no good reason. Yes, but note how you have framed the situation. What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness? Who then is the arbiter of whose opinion is right? Somehow I don't think it's a good idea for democratic processes to label the side that is wrong as "horrible people." Otherwise, why have a democratic process at all? he partially brought this on himself, and not just by way of a $1000 donation 6 years ago, but also how he reacted to it recently. What specifically did he do recently?

jeswin 13y ago
What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness? Well, if a person sincerely believed that black people should not be granted equal rights would you pick him as CEO? I'm pretty sure you won't; gay rights are the same thing. I really admire the technical work Eich does, and benefit tremendously from it. However, his views on gay rights are disappointing.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  if a person sincerely believed that black people should not be granted equal rights You got the analogy incorrect. What if that person sincerely believed that the policy preserved equal rights?
ChristianBundy 13y ago
Recently, he declined to comment on the issue or address whether his beliefs or motives had changed – which, to many people, meant that he stood behind his actions and genuinely believed that same-sex couples should be oppressed.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  Hmmm. I think that if someone is potentially headed into the midst of some public controversy, and they decline to comment, that's pretty understandable. The fact that so much energy has been devoted to this -- that 6 years ago some CEO made a donation to a political group people don't like -- indicates something broken in the prioritization of effort in US political life. Seems like they didn't go after Mr. Eich so much because of the severity of what he did, but rather that they were able to get to him. (Seriously -- Brendan Eich > the Koch Brothers?)
  - ChristianBundy 13y ago
    They went after him on the principle of what he did (a principle he probably still stands behind), and would probably go after the Koch brothers if anyone had any leverage on them.
    - stcredzero 13y ago
      a principle he probably... When a group starts throwing its power around on the basis of "probably," it's time to start wondering.
pmjordan 13y ago
What specifically did he do recently? He was interviewed. To be honest I don't know why he agreed to it as I don't see how he could have thought that steadfastly dodging the issue would improve the situation. http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-could-hurt-firefox-cause-q-a/ http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-... I was on the fence as to whether he should be the public head of Mozilla before reading this (I disagree with him on the issue in question, but I suspect many hold beliefs that I don't agree with), but in that interview he just comes across as an arse. If the transcript is faithful to what was said, I'd say the interviewer gave him plenty of chances for reconciliation, and Eich refused to take them.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  He was not under any obligation to this "reconciliation." One could also argue that not answering in a situation like this is a principled stand on his right to privately hold a political opinion. In the US, it's legal to hold opinions that are "wrong." It should also be socially acceptable, otherwise we are creating a social climate where rational discussion becomes impossible.
glesica 13y ago
> What specifically did he do recently? Refused to apologize, even fake apologize, meaning he hasn't changed his views. He also came across as weirdly combative, trying to justify his homophobia by pointing out that homophobia is still the norm in Malaysia or something along those lines. He wasn't smooth about it at all. > Somehow I don't think it's a good idea for democratic processes to label the side that is wrong as "horrible people." There are degrees of "horrible people", and in my opinion Brendan Eich does fall on that spectrum, though admittedly he's not even close to the worst of the worst, but he makes the cut. That's my two cents though, take it or leave it. I personally feel pretty strongly about gay rights, so there's that. > What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness? I think this is a flawed argument. Bigots almost never seem to believe themselves to be bigots. They think they're saving gay peoples' souls (without ever asking if they want their souls saved) or various things like that. Or they, maybe not overtly, don't really see gay people (or whatever group we're talking about) as real people with feelings. That's what is so insidious about bigotry, it's not a Lord of the Rings thing where the villain (who conveniently wears black and lives in a scary castle) stands up and says "Muhahaha I'm going to make everyone miserable!". Instead, the villain says "I'm going to help all of you out by forcing you to be just like me, trust me, things will be better this way!".
- stcredzero 13y ago
  Bigots almost never seem to believe themselves to be bigots. Also, the powerful unjust never believe themselves to be unjust. That's what is so insidious about bigotry, it's not a Lord of the Rings thing where the villain (who conveniently wears black and lives in a scary castle) stands up and says "Muhahaha I'm going to make everyone miserable!". Instead, the villain says "I'm going to help all of you out by forcing you to be just like me, trust me, things will be better this way!". Seems to me that the same level of insidiousness applies to insisting that everyone else kowtows to your particular opinion. Isn't insisting that Brendan Eich express some particular opinion effectively insisting that, "I'm going to help you out by forcing you to be just like me..."?
  - batiudrami 13y ago
ChrisGaudreau 13y ago
What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness? Supporters of slavery used the Bible to justify their beliefs. They did not believe it was about bigotry. They thought slavery was in fact providing economic opportunity to slaves, and they believed their own livelihood depended upon it. Supporters of slavery thought about it in economic and religious terms. If the CEO of my workplace believes in slavery but truly doesn't believe it is immoral, do I not have the right to speak out? If you believe in slavery or nazism, that's fine. You're allowed to believe in those things. But we are allowed to express that you are wrong for holding those beliefs, and we can choose whether or not we support bigoted viewpoints by purchasing your products. Using one's right to free speech to oppose bigoted speech is not impeding anybody's rights.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  But does "opposing speech" have to include getting someone fired for something they did 6 years ago? Opposing speech in an open democratic society shouldn't have the effect of oppressing the speech of others -- even if such actions are technically legal. Otherwise, it becomes the "open democratic society for the people whose opinions I like." Using one's right to free speech to oppose bigoted speech is not impeding anybody's rights. This is technically true, but the way such an idea was applied in this case lacks something of the spirit of free speech in a truly tolerant and open society.
  - ChrisGaudreau 13y ago
    Well, he didn't say he regrets his actions from 6 years ago. It's kind of like adultery. If I cheated on you 6 years ago but never apologized for it or expressed regret for it, should you feel comfortable with me today? What if I wasn't clear about whether I believe adultery is okay? What if I wasn't clear about whether I am still committing adultery? The beliefs he holds are still current, as far as anyone can tell. If they aren't, I'm sure he would have said so. This is technically true, but the way such an idea was applied in this case lacks something of the spirit of free speech in a truly tolerant and open society. Yeah, some gay rights activists were a bit over the top and maybe should try a bit harder to understand the other side. But it is an emotional issue. If I feel that somebody is trying to use the might of the government to take away my rights, it's going to be difficult to sympathize with and understand why they would do that.

blisterpeanuts 13y ago

Almost everyone has bigoted opinions on one subject or another. Suppose that a devout Muslim is hired by the Mozilla Foundation. He says nothing of his beliefs in his interview. He wears jeans, T-shirts, and sneakers, and he looks like any other modern guy who happens to be from the Middle East or South Asia. Should he be fired once it's discovered he's religious? Should he have been asked a bunch of probing questions--do you beat your wife? Do you believe homosexuals should be stoned to death? Do you consider Jews spawn of the devil? Should women who are raped be killed by their families? Are there times when suicide bombing is justified? These are all Koranic teachings held to be literally true by extremists, and put into practice by thousands of people every year. You could ask similar questions of a fundamentalist Christian. You could ask a black man whether he refers to whites as "crackers" behind their back. The fact is, no one's perfect, everyone has some baggage, and we all have to get along. I think this whole Eich affair is a sad and nasty example of intolerance run amok. It doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong about his support for Prop 8. There is no right or wrong. There's only agree or disagree. Diversity and tolerance are two way streets. You can't pretend to be tolerant, then fire people or demonize those who don't strictly adhere to your political beliefs. That's a genie that can't be put back in the bottle, once you release it.

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
Diversity and tolerance are two way streets. You can't pretend to be tolerant, then fire people or demonize those who don't strictly adhere to your political beliefs. That's a genie that can't be put back in the bottle, once you release it. You can, actually, and it's required. This is known as the paradox of tolerance. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tolerance http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tolerance
- blisterpeanuts 13y ago
  OK, that's an interesting concept, and when I'm more awake, I'll have to read about it.

Jugurtha 13y ago

>I'm really struggling to decide where to come down on this issue. It absolutely is a bigoted opinion that he holds and essentially comes down to denying a group of people happiness for no good reason. Still, it's his opinion. It's a bigoted opinion to think you can deny someone the right to have his bigoted opinion. This is a serious matter. This opens the door to: You either think this exact same way and have these exact opinions, or you're a bad person and face the consequences. It was a donation on his own name, not on Mozilla's behalf. It was a donation for lobbying against gay marriage. Pro-gay marriage people donated money too. They are even denying him to play by the rules they are playing by. It's like playing basketball and you take off your hoop and demand the other team to play normally. It's not fair.

batiudrami 13y ago
I don't have an issue with him holding that opinion (though some people obviously do). I just don't see why his opinion should be allowed to affect others. By contributing money to a campaign which aims to make gay marriage illegal he is actively hurting gay people. That, for me at least, is a problem. It's more like "I think it should be illegal to play without a basketball hoop because then it doesn't make any sense to me, because basketball is defined as requiring a hoop".