4 ms·

> ...you might be the one receiving this treatment. If at that point I'm wrong, then good. If at that point I'm right, then that will be an injustice, but whet

by glesica 13y ago

> ...you might be the one receiving this treatment. If at that point I'm wrong, then good. If at that point I'm right, then that will be an injustice, but whether Eich was forced out or not will have had zero bearing on that. Like it or not, the CEO of Mozilla is a public figure, and people are entitled to have opinions about public figures and to voice those opinions, and Mozilla is free to consider those opinions when choosing a CEO. This is literally how every boycott or other similar action happens. No one (that I know of) called for the government to remove Eich, no one called for him to be lynched, they called for Mozilla to remove Eich or for Eich to resign or, failing one of those, for people to stop supporting Mozilla. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. What you call "thoughtcrime" has another name: public discourse.

betterunix 13y ago
"people are entitled to have opinions about public figures and to voice those opinions" Sure, people are entitled to their opinions, and that is what this is all about. The problem here is that someone lost his job because of his opinion. "This is literally how every boycott or other similar action happens." Boycotts are typically about corporate policies, practices, or lobbying. For example, I know people who refuse to shop at Walmart because of the company's anti-unionization efforts. What we saw here is very different. At no point did Mozilla take any kind of anti-gay-marriage position. At no point did Mozilla do anything that was hostile to homosexual employees, users, or people in general. This was a boycott over the CEO's personal beliefs, despite the complete lack of evidence or accusations of him using his position at Mozilla to advance those beliefs. What happened here is that Mozilla's public image was attacked in an effort to punish Eich for his opinion. "What you call "thoughtcrime" has another name: public discourse." No, public discourse involves people calmly stating their views and arguing for those views (e.g. what we are doing right now). It is not public discourse when someone loses their job because of their opinion, all the more so when that opinion has no relevance to their job. It is not public discourse when people band together to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them. Eich was punished for having an opinion that people do not like. He was told that he has no right to be a leader in the tech community because of that opinion, without regard to his contributions to the community, without regard to his behavior in a leadership position at Mozilla. There are only two terms that are appropriate in describing what happened: thoughtcrime and bullying.
- glesica 13y ago
  > ...despite the complete lack of evidence or accusations of him using his position at Mozilla to advance those beliefs. No evidence was necessary, because it doesn't matter. I refuse to buy products from companies owned by the Koch brothers because I think they are disgusting, immoral people. It has nothing to do with the quality of their products, it has everything to do with them. Eich's case is slightly different because Mozilla is non-profit, but the basic principle is the same. See my next point. > ...he has no right to be a leader in the tech community because of that opinion... I firmly believe this to be 100% true. Eich is a bigot and bigots have no place in leadership positions as far as I'm concerned, in the tech community or elsewhere. Achievement and brilliance don't give a person license to be a bigot. > ...Mozilla's public image was attacked in an effort to punish Eich for his opinion. Mozilla's public image was attacked because they hired a bigot to be CEO. End of story. Eich has a right to his opinion. I think it is very important to point out that I (and I hope others who share my opinion) would not have supported government intervention to remove him. I don't think he should be forced to believe something he doesn't believe, or to pretend to believe something he doesn't believe. But I also see nothing wrong with expecting our leaders to have moral views we find acceptable, and the CEO of Mozilla is definitely a leader, and being vocal about it when they don't.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    No evidence was necessary, because it doesn't matter. Truly the words of a fair, rational, and tolerant stance.
halostatue 13y ago
Is there anything short of resignation that Eich could have said or done that would have satisfied people participating in the protests against his appointment? If not, then the lessons learned here (either by Eich or by the people who called for his removal) are bad ones. Eich was in a tough spot here. He holds beliefs (and contributed to causes in favour of those beliefs) that may be in opposition to Mozilla’s HR policies. It is absolutely important to know that he would ensure that those policies would be enforced fairly. I’m not sure there are any good resolutions to this sort of problem.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  If Mozilla would have stood by Brendan Eich, it would have blown over and been forgotten. Seriously, choice of a piece of software no one pays for and a donation someone made in a personal capacity 6 years ago -- this is not a subject worthy of this amount of noise.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  "I was wrong to use the power of law to enforce my religious views on other people." would have satisfied me.

by glesica 13y ago

betterunix 13y ago

"people are entitled to have opinions about public figures and to voice those opinions" Sure, people are entitled to their opinions, and that is what this is all about. The problem here is that someone lost his job because of his opinion. "This is literally how every boycott or other similar action happens." Boycotts are typically about corporate policies, practices, or lobbying. For example, I know people who refuse to shop at Walmart because of the company's anti-unionization efforts. What we saw here is very different. At no point did Mozilla take any kind of anti-gay-marriage position. At no point did Mozilla do anything that was hostile to homosexual employees, users, or people in general. This was a boycott over the CEO's personal beliefs, despite the complete lack of evidence or accusations of him using his position at Mozilla to advance those beliefs. What happened here is that Mozilla's public image was attacked in an effort to punish Eich for his opinion. "What you call "thoughtcrime" has another name: public discourse." No, public discourse involves people calmly stating their views and arguing for those views (e.g. what we are doing right now). It is not public discourse when someone loses their job because of their opinion, all the more so when that opinion has no relevance to their job. It is not public discourse when people band together to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them. Eich was punished for having an opinion that people do not like. He was told that he has no right to be a leader in the tech community because of that opinion, without regard to his contributions to the community, without regard to his behavior in a leadership position at Mozilla. There are only two terms that are appropriate in describing what happened: thoughtcrime and bullying.

glesica 13y ago
> ...despite the complete lack of evidence or accusations of him using his position at Mozilla to advance those beliefs. No evidence was necessary, because it doesn't matter. I refuse to buy products from companies owned by the Koch brothers because I think they are disgusting, immoral people. It has nothing to do with the quality of their products, it has everything to do with them. Eich's case is slightly different because Mozilla is non-profit, but the basic principle is the same. See my next point. > ...he has no right to be a leader in the tech community because of that opinion... I firmly believe this to be 100% true. Eich is a bigot and bigots have no place in leadership positions as far as I'm concerned, in the tech community or elsewhere. Achievement and brilliance don't give a person license to be a bigot. > ...Mozilla's public image was attacked in an effort to punish Eich for his opinion. Mozilla's public image was attacked because they hired a bigot to be CEO. End of story. Eich has a right to his opinion. I think it is very important to point out that I (and I hope others who share my opinion) would not have supported government intervention to remove him. I don't think he should be forced to believe something he doesn't believe, or to pretend to believe something he doesn't believe. But I also see nothing wrong with expecting our leaders to have moral views we find acceptable, and the CEO of Mozilla is definitely a leader, and being vocal about it when they don't.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  No evidence was necessary, because it doesn't matter. Truly the words of a fair, rational, and tolerant stance.

halostatue 13y ago

Is there anything short of resignation that Eich could have said or done that would have satisfied people participating in the protests against his appointment? If not, then the lessons learned here (either by Eich or by the people who called for his removal) are bad ones. Eich was in a tough spot here. He holds beliefs (and contributed to causes in favour of those beliefs) that may be in opposition to Mozilla’s HR policies. It is absolutely important to know that he would ensure that those policies would be enforced fairly. I’m not sure there are any good resolutions to this sort of problem.

stcredzero 13y ago
If Mozilla would have stood by Brendan Eich, it would have blown over and been forgotten. Seriously, choice of a piece of software no one pays for and a donation someone made in a personal capacity 6 years ago -- this is not a subject worthy of this amount of noise.
nknighthb 13y ago
"I was wrong to use the power of law to enforce my religious views on other people." would have satisfied me.