8 ms·
Brendan Eich, We’ve Failed You. I’m Sorry.
- anon1385 13y agoFor goodness sake, when are people going to understand that freedom of expression doesn't (and shouldn't) mean freedom from criticism. This is not a difficult concept people.
- mschuster91 13y agoWhat happened with Eich was not criticism any more, rather a full blown witch hunt, complete with forks and fire. The internet has become too much of 4chan the last few years.
- kolektiv 13y agoI haven't been paying overly close attention, but all of the reaction I have seen has generally been blog/twitter based expressions of sadness/disappointment/betrayal. Has it really escalated far beyond that? (Genuine question).
- sehr 13y agoThere were supposedly death threats, but I haven't seen any. In general though, and from an anecdotal perspective, various internet communities do seem to be more and more involved in 'causes' of various sorts. Whether or not those causes lead to escalation seems to depend on the subject matter and participants, just like anything else really.
- ZeroGravitas 13y agoWe should probably start a list of thing that don't lead to death threats online, it'll be shorter. The most recent example was someone suggesting putting a famous woman's face on the next UK pound note and getting such threats.
- mschuster91 13y agoOKCupid blocked all Firefox users with a warning message saying that their users should not use a browser whose development CEO dislikes gay marriage. Borders to extortion or unfair competition, in my eyes.
- oneeyedpigeon 13y agoThey didn't block them; they showed them a message, invited them to use an alternative browser, and allowed them to continue if they so wished.
- SandB0x 13y agoPresumably that part was written in JavaScript.
- maneesh 13y agoThey also continued to use JavaScript on their site, regardless of browser. Since Eich invented JavaScript, shouldn't they stop using it?
- oneeyedpigeon 13y ago(I'm slightly wary of this ridiculous argument, but here goes...) Eich wasn't the CEO of 'JavaScript', so that's not really the same thing, is it?
- toyg 13y agoThat's more of an accident of history, really. In his own words, Netscape told him to come up with something, anything, quick, and lo JavaScript was born. Had Netscape known that he was a closet homophobe, would they have hired him in the first place? It's also much easier being an homophobe engineer rather than a homophobe CEO, because of the nature of the role. His technical achievements can be as impressive as you want and have no relation to his homophobia; being CEO is a role built on public relationships inside and outside the company, relationships that would be severely influenced by his (perceived) homophobia.
- 13y ago
- anon1385 13y agoI've seen a few people say they won't be using Mozilla products any longer, which is up to them of course. I doubt it is any significant number of people. The only thing I've seen that 'crossed the line' so to speak was the okcpuid thing urging users to stop using Firefox. I didn't see exactly what the message was. It sounded more like a marketing stunt to get some media attention. I think if it had been other people/companies targeted then people on HN would have been applauding their disruptive and entrepreneurial marketing department.
- rsynnott 13y agoI don't see that that crosses any line, as such. It used to be very common for websites to tell people not to use Internet Explorer, sometimes on a purely technical basis, but often on a "Microsoft is evil" basis. This seems similar to the latter.
- mschuster91 13y agoFlaming a company is a vastly different from death threats and hate mobs against a person.
- rsynnott 13y agoI was responding to a comment about a website showing a message to Firefox users; the website made no death threats.
- beaker52 13y agoIt's called smear. It happens to people in high places whose pyramid of power is missing a keystone or two.
- pohl 13y agoSo that's what a "witch hunt" is these days, eh...people blog, comment on the blog, post the blog to social networks, comment on the social network posts, make claims about how they'll change their consuming habits in response to the post... There once was a day when "witch hunt" actually referred to strapping live human beings to kindling and setting them ablaze.
- rmc 13y agoA witch hunt? Is he dead? Has he been beaten to death like man LGBT people?
- DerKommissar 13y agoSeems to me they found a witch. Or is bigotry just a myth?
- Wintamute 13y agoThe people who felt criticised by Eich's expression of criticism and then felt compelled to drive him out of his job would do well to remember that too, don't you think?
- anon1385 13y agoI don't see your point. I don't see anybody in here (yet) saying that the article we are discussing (or any other article defending Eich) shouldn't have been written or published - merely some people disagreeing with it. I have seen plenty of people over the last week or however long it has been saying criticism of Eich should not have been written or published because to criticise somebody for their views is being 'intolerant'.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago"I don't see your point." ~ anon1385 Naturally. What if people decided they're not cool with people who engage in witch hunts having jobs anymore? Doesn't matter because it won't happen? That's not morality though.
- anon1385 13y agoNobody that I have seen said Eich shouldn't have any job anymore. Just that he wasn't a good choice for this particular leadership role. I'm not privy to what happened within Mozilla, but it does sound like it was internal disagreements (i.e. Mozilla employees begin unhappy with the appointment) that lead to him leaving the post, more than bloggers or HN commenters. That is just the nature of taking a leadership role. If you can't take the staff with you then your position isn't tenable.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago> Just that he wasn't a good choice for this particular leadership role. Since his role had exactly zero to do with his personal views, you could say this about any future job as well.
- marrs 13y agoHe wasn't criticised for his views, he was fired
- higherpurpose 13y agoBy the same token, the people who forced him to resign shouldn't be free of criticism. Right?
- beaker52 13y agoCEOs, like any other employee, are representatives of the company they're employed by. Just as if I were to post racist comments on my [Generic Social Media], my employer is going to need to do something to protect the company, because as the article points out: people (clients, customers) are judgemental, critics of gay marriage and critics of Brendan Eich included.
- madeofpalk 13y ago> CEOs, like any other employee, are representatives of the company they're employed by. Executives of companies are representatives so much more than the rest of the employees.
- jellicle 13y agoTrue. And yet normally, the CEO is immune from the consequences of her actions, while the employee risks getting fired for the slightest deviation.
- awwducks 13y agoI think the concern centers more around the perceived double standard on seemingly arbitrary issues. For instance, if Eich was a strong supporter of gay marriage, I have a hard time seeing him forced to step down. I get that gay marriage is not an "arbitrary issue" for many people, but I think the definition of what is arbitrary and what are violations of fundamental civil rights can get tricky.
- alohahacker 13y agogreat point!!
- rsynnott 13y agoLook at it this way. If he'd been funding a campaign to make a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage, do you think he'd have been able to keep the job? Like it or not, in the West, gay people are increasingly in the category of people who most people assume should have equal rights.
- Methusalah 13y agoWe do not need to be tolerant of intolerance.
- pete_b 13y agoYou sound quite intolerant.
- Methusalah 13y agoIntolerant of people who seek to use our government to oppress minorities due to their own ignorance and hatred? Definitely.
- Solarsail 13y agoTo not be tolerant of intolerance is to be more intolerant than any religious fundamentalist or extremist.
- Methusalah 13y agoOh right, I forgot how religious fundamentalists and extremists are universally praised for their ability to accept contradictory views and lifestyles! What a powerful argument!
- Solarsail 13y agoI wasn't implying that they were tolerant. Only that intolerance of intolerance, as it were, is one of the most extreme form on intolerance around. Taken to its extreme, it is intolerant of a very large swath of human thought. Religious fundies are mostly just intolerant of things contradicting their own religion, not stuff that's irrelevant to it.
- saalweachter 13y agoMeh. There is a selectively low bar on persecution these days. He wasn't being denied the right to marry, they right to make medical decisions for or visit a loved one in the hospital, the right to adopt. He wasn't even being denied the right to a decent living. He was denied access to a particular leadership position. While there is a slippery slope to be found in denying leadership positions based on belief, there are also two sets of rights to consider. The rights of the (potential) leader, and the rights of the workers he leads. Given that the belief he expressed through his donation concerned the civil rights of other people and not himself, why should I expect that he will respect the rights of any LTBG workers in his employee?
- mhurron 13y ago> He was being denied access to a particular leadership position. He wasn't denied access to the position, he had it. Others made it clear they were not interested in being lead by him. A decision had to be made to either let those people leave or he had to choose to leave.
- bzbarsky 13y agoI did not see a single post from someone who would be led by Brendan saying they did not want to be lead by him. In fact, the opposite. Please do look up the difference between the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation. He was picked as CEO of the _Corporation_ but the Mozilla employees who called for his resignation were employees of the _Foundation_, and hence wouldn't be led by him at all. The Corporation employees who spoke out in public were saying things like https://twitter.com/Jason_Duell/status/449265719474008064 https://twitter.com/Jason_Duell/status/449265719474008064 and http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZFsNqrZZqhcJ:www.twobraids.com/2014/03/the-mozilla-ceo.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-nightly http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZFsNqrZ... (since deleted, apparently) and http://subfictional.com/2014/03/24/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of-mozilla/ http://subfictional.com/2014/03/24/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of... It's hard to tell from the outside, of course, since everyone involved just claimed to be working from "Mozilla", so it's easy to make the mistake you made.
- kolektiv 13y agoWe haven't failed him. While the old "may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" trope gets used here, it doesn't mean you need to protect people from the consequences of their speech. Brendan Eich can donate to whatever causes he wishes, and rightfully so, but there is rightly no protection from the public opinion based consequences arising from those donations. Equally, justifications such as "meritocracy" imply that being a CEO is a very narrow thing - it isn't, it's a position of authority and leadership, and if you can't (near universally) inspire confidence in the people you're intended to lead, that is a problem with your ability to function as CEO.
- matthewmacleod 13y agoThank you for stating this in a polite and straightforward manner – that is also my take on this issue. I struggle with the opposition to this move when the reaction against Eich's position is de facto evidence that he would not have been able to perform in the role.
- ralfd 13y agoBut the (feared) reaction against gays in the military was taken as argument for denying them entry. It is a bit of a circular argument.
- sspiff 13y agoI agree that people shouldn't be protected from the consequences of what they say or do, and I don't agree with Eich's point of view. However, I feel like the reaction to his becoming CEO and trying to get him to step down were unjustified. I believe that someone shouldn't be judged on his political or religious affiliation when being considered for a new job or a new role. I have political convictions which are perpendicular to some of my colleagues ideas, and guess what, we get along just fine at work. I fail to see how his opinion on same-sex marriage (or his sponsorship of conservative politicians in general) would be a problem for guiding Mozilla forward. As long as he doesn't use Mozilla as a tool for his personal agenda.
- 13y ago
- rsynnott 13y agoIf he'd been funding a campaign for a constitutional ban on interracial marriage, he'd never even have been considered for the role in the first place (and rightly so). Certainly, he has the right to say, think and fund what he likes, but if you're funding an effort to remove peoples' rights, you shouldn't be too surprised if people are disinclined to let you have a job which places you in authority over a company full of people.
- alohahacker 13y agoWe're tolerant as long as we share the same views. The irony in tolerance in this case is unreal.
- oneeyedpigeon 13y agoBut what's the point of tolerance if you just blindly accept any view, no matter how controversial or offensive, without challenging it? I see nothing wrong with the position of "everyone is entitled to air any opinion whatsoever, so long as anyone else is entitled to challenge them". No-one, as far as I know, has attacked Eich, threatened him, etc. they've just expressed concern about his views, which everyone is perfectly entitled to do.
- agapos 13y ago"But what's the point of tolerance if you just blindly accept any view" khm acceptance is acceptance, and tolerance is tolerance. You do not accept it, you tolerate it. Not the same thing.
- oneeyedpigeon 13y agoI agree entirely - concur and accept or disagree, tolerate, and challenge.
- alohahacker 13y agoIf you read the comments and tweets there were a lot of nasty personal attacks on Eich and reported physical threats against him for donating to prop 8 five years ago. A amendment that actually passed by the way. I'm fine with respectful open discussion but the entire situation left me with an uneasy taste in my mouth. If another CEO supported gay marriage and it created a stir like Eich's case did, I would feel the same way. Imagine if Sergey Brin donated to a gay marriage group 5 years ago and it caused such a stir that sites like fox or disney asked you to switch from chrome. Imagine the thousands of tweets criticizing him and the right media making a spectacle out of it calling out his character. That would be ridiculous. It's about mutual respect and discussing ones differences in a cordial human way. In this case, it was anything but that and the double standard was obviously apparent.
- otikik 13y agoPlease don't include me in that "we".
- eik3_de 13y agoo/
- lomegor 13y agoIt's a sad day when homophobia is not a valid reason for so much people to fire a representative of your company.
- voicereasonish 13y agoA majority voted the same way as him. The president held the same views. But you're singling him out as homophobic??
- natch 13y agoThis line of thinking is juvenile. He was being singled out as the CEO of Mozilla.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- PaulRobinson 13y agoWhen you find somebody holds an opinion you disagree with you have a choice of either ignoring them, pushing them away or engaging them in discussion (which requires a reciprocal action on their part). It seems the latter option wasn't even considered, everybody just wanted rid. That's: a) Not very mature b) Worse, a missed opportunity to convince somebody of an alternative view Well done everybody, you've turned somebody you disagree with into an entrenched and victimised somebody you disagree with who hates you. clap clap clap
- oneeyedpigeon 13y agoSo The Guardian offered him an opportunity for dialogue [1], to have that debate. He had a chance to explain why he held the views that he did. He refused. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-refuses-to-quit http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ce...
- rmc 13y agoSshh! It's easier to ignore things like that and cast him as a victim of those mean gays!
- danso 13y agoJesus, this is the epitome of naive techie blabbering. Does OP really think that the CEO position is based on "merit" alone? That football teams are all coached by former Heisman Winners? That all generals have Medals of Honor? It's not even worth debating Eich specifically with the OP; his view of the world is astonishingly naive.
- steven2012 13y agoThis is sickening. Denying gays the right to marriage is not a free speech issue, it's a human rights issue. Replace gay marriage with interracial marriage and see if the idea of "we failed you because we didn't support your right to believe that interracial marriage is wrong" still stands up. Trying to equate this to a free speech issue is just another way of discriminating against gays. Eich actively supported the discrimination against gays and there's no way that he has the moral right to lead a company like Mozilla. I for one am glad that he was put through the wringer and hope anyone else that believes in any form of discrimination and wants to lead a company gets the same treatment or worse. EDIT: someone rightfully pointed out I overstepped my description. I changed "Eich discriminated against gays" to "Eich actively supported the discrimination of gays"
- Ygg2 13y ago> gets the same treatment or worse. Lynch Brendan Eich? Dunno he seemed like a person competent to lead Mozilla. Just seems weird how fiery was the criticism. At this point the homophobes and the anti-homophobe camp are starting to sound eerily similar.
- asdfaoeu 13y agoHe never discriminated against gays. He expressed his political opinion in the form of a donation.
- 13y ago
- fredgrott 13y agoIn a way we did.. If we carry it to its logical conclusion that the Marriage License is free from religion than by that concept a Muslim living in the US should be able to Marry multiple wives and so should Mormons..
- naterator 13y agoThere are people fighting for those rights as well. And I don't think they're insane (as you seem to imply). As long as it's clearly agreed upon between consenting adults, it's not so ridiculous. Perhaps the logistics of that are more complicated, but should they be denied that if they really want it?
- camus2 13y agoAnd you know what, that's perfectly fine to me, as long as they are all adults,they are not forced, and they can divorce. Why should we impose whatever notion of marriage on mormons, or muslims ? if they want to have 12 spouses ,let them have 12 spouses...
- intslack 13y agoI agree with Sullivan's take[1] posted yesterday. If this is the gay-rights movement today, a bunch of extremist Social Justice Warriors, I want no part of it. Not only that, but Catlin's reaction to it[2] is also shameful: 'oops, we thought he would evolve like President Obama did, our bad. but hey, we're putting our apps back on the marketplace!' [1] http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/ http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-br... [2] http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/04/03/a-sad-victory/ http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/04/03/a-sad-victory/
- intull 13y ago> If this is the gay-rights movement today, a bunch of extremist Social Justice Warriors, I want no part of it. Partially true. This episode has been disturbing, yes, but at the same time, it has held strong by the community and the public. And it'll only get stronger till there is equality. It is the frustration of people, friends and family which makes episodes like these escalate. Only a strong movement can bring an impact. So are they a bunch of "extremists"? No. Are they moderators then? No, again. Its somewhere in the middle.
- SchizoDuckie 13y agoVery very intolerant and hypocritical of everybody that basically bullied him away. There's finally a self made rock star in a position of power and somehow people have played in such a way that he's the boogie man. Over a fricking PERSONAL point of view. I can make many many analogies to other businesses and some religious institutions, but this would have happened nowhere but Mozilla. Stop using #mozilla for your anti-gay/pro-gay/liberal/conservative/libertarian platforms. Read the manifesto: http://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto/ http://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto/
- edent 13y agoHe just didn't have the right culture fit for Mozilla. (Shamelessly stolen from elsewhere.) Essentially, it's really hard to lead people who don't respect you. We can all have a civil disagreement about whether vi or emacs is superior, or if Political Party X is better than Y. But when you specifically attack the fundamental rights of your employees and their friends / family, then refuse to apologise for it, you're simply not going to be a credible leader. Here's the other thing - in capitalism, you have to listen to your customers. If the "Moral Majority" wants to boycott your shop/browser/TV show because your CEO isn't sufficiently deferential to their god - they can go for it. If the business wants to succeed, it has decide whether it will be more profitable to capitulate or not. In Mozilla's case, they have (belatedly) seen the way the world is turning. Good for them.
- DougBTX 13y ago> He just didn't have the right culture fit for Mozilla. I find that hard to believe, his Wikipedia page says he started working for Netscape in 1995, founded mozilla.org in 1998, and helped found the Mozilla Foundation in 2003. If it was a culture fit problem, it took a long time for them to find that out. Seems more like a lynching after he became too publicly known.
- edent 13y agoYou appear to have your irony filters set too high... The point I'm trying to make is that we see countless example of "Culture Fit" being used as a poor excuse to get rid of an employee for having the temerity to be female, gay, disabled, an ethnic minority - or anything other than the narrowly defined "bro" culture which sadly seems to infect some high-tech companies.
- coldpie 13y ago> more like a lynching Yes, being fired from a powerful position because you actively tried to deny some of your employees and fellow countrymen their human rights and dignity is exactly the same as being hung from a tree for innate characteristics. Get some perspective.
- 13y ago
- nnq 13y agoWill we ever stop conflating opinions with competency, in general? A person can just as well be a full-blown racist or xenophobe and at the same time a very competent leader. The only thing you show when pushing someone down from a leadership position because of some of his opinions is that "that was not a real leadership position, we just needed a puppet good for PR". Human beings are not things you can take "as whole". A person can be total asshole in one aspect and a great guy in another aspect. You need to see people as "bags of ideas that happen to coexist in a mind and body" and the concept of "individual" as mostly an illusion, and look for the bags with the most good pieces, even if they can have some poisoned beans in them. And it's the same thing for leaders. If you look for an "overall great human being with no great flaws in any aspects" you can only get: (a) a mediocre person that is not "too bad" in any way but also not exceptionally good in any way or (b) a highly skilled liar and manipulator, most likely a very advanced psychopath, that can perfectly hide all his flaws and appear "overall an awesome guy". Oh wait, I've just described 99% of the world's leaders... Another thing you get by going this way is that you end up with the people really "calling the shots" staying in the shadows, leading through puppets they manipulate and being completely unaccountable.
- kijin 13y agoSome CEOs have donated to a political campaign of questionable merit on one occasion in the past. Some CEOs kill elephants for fun. And there are many shades of gray in between. I'm not sure exactly where the threshold for "This guy needs to get lost" is, but I'm pretty sure the cutoff is somewhere between the two cases I just alluded to, rather than to one side of both. Sure, Mr. Eich could try to fire gay employees (if that's legal, which I doubt), but he could just as well help make Mozilla an even brighter beacon of free speech than it already is, indirectly helping the LGBT community and thereby atoning for whatever sins he might have once committed against it. What matters is that the "community" (or some subset of it) didn't even give him a chance to demonstrate, through actual decisions, which path he will choose and how he will try to strike a balance between his personal beliefs and the needs of the community. I guess we were too impatient -- or more likely, too lazy -- to wait for some actually relevant evidence upon which to base a solid opinion. What's next? Boycott FOSS products whose authors are found to be religious? DDoS attacks on companies that donated to Romney's campaign? By the way, is anyone still using ReiserFS?
- kefka 13y ago> Sure, he could try to fire gay employees (if that's legal, which I doubt) It is legal in 29 states to fire someone for their sexual preference.* *Source http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2012/10/18/41907/infographic-gay-and-transgender-workers-lack-comprehensive-workplace-protections/ http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2012/10/18/...
- kijin 13y agoAFAIK Mozilla is based in Mountain View, California, where (according to your infographic) it is indeed illegal to fire someone for their sexual orientation or gender identity. Not sure if that also applies to remote workers who live in other states, though.
- kefka 13y agoToo true, that. However, I live in the midwest (Indiana) where we do not have similar protections over things as basic as sexual identity. It really is that backwards here.
- breakall 13y agoThe blog posts, comments, and tweets aren't really what provided the direct pressure for him to resign. Far more likely that corporate partners, donors, etc. called the remaining board members or anyone else of any influence and told them that the money would dry up if this problem didn't go away. I find it interesting that the fact of his donation came up in 2012 when he was CTO of Mozilla (the organization he co-founded). This didn't become an issue in 2014 organically -- again I think it's far more likely that someone had it out for Eich, and saw their best opportunity to revive a two year old issue and get rid of him when he became CEO.
- zimpenfish 13y agoOr it's just that people are ok with CTOs having unpopular dodgy opinions (because the power and influence of that position is limited) but that becomes a -much- bigger problem when they move to being the CEO (figurehead of the company, etc.)
- meshko 13y agoSigh. You are talking about the guy who created JavaSCript. Show no mercy.
- kjjw 13y agoThis article hits my two pet peeves. Anyone who believes a person's rights should extend beyond the point at which they infringe on the rights of others is not worth listening to. Also, please don't use the term 'meritocracy'. Ever. Are you referring to the idea of rubber stamping people for positions of power based on their parents ability to pay for for the most expensive university courses and degrees? No, I didn't think so.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago>Anyone who believes a person's rights should extend beyond the point at which they infringe on the rights of others is not worth listening to. // Lets suppose I believe the exact opposite. Doesn't your claim then extend beyond you and infringe on my rights. Or better yet let us suppose that a society has a right en masse, for example for taxes to be used to aid child-rearing. That could infringe on your conception of personal rights too. As to meritocracy - you appear to confuse the term with plutocracy. Now it's true that those from privileged families may be better able to perform certain tasks, but to refuse to allow them to perform those tasks simply because their families are rich, isn't that rather ridiculous? Meritocracy is quite the opposite, if you can perform the task to a sufficient degree is the only measure; whether you have been to an expensive university or not is irrelevant to the meritocrat.
- kjjw 13y agoNo I am not confusing the word at all. A meritocracy is a society built on the idea that one must (quite literally) gain a 'merit' before being considered for some role. This is open to obvious abuse - the ones that get into power can decide how one can gain the merit. In the US, it has been decided that one must pay for it. I repeat: you have completely misunderstood the definition of the word 'meritocracy'. The condition is not 'can you perform the task' but 'do you have the requisite (and very literal) merit (passed an exam, for example.) Don't worry though - a lot of people make this mistake.
- pbhjpbhj 13y agoCouple of dictionary definitions for you [the first 2 on dictionary.com]: "mer·i·toc·ra·cy [mer-i-tok-ruh-see] Show IPA noun, plural mer·i·toc·ra·cies. 1. an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth." "meritocracy (ˌmɛrɪˈtɒkrəsɪ) — n , pl -cies 1. rule by persons chosen not because of birth or wealth, but for their superior talents or intellect" You appear to be trolling me.
- danpalmer 13y agoWe should not be tolerant of intolerance.
- hajile 13y agoBuilding a moral framework atop a paradox seems like poor logic to build upon. Here's a related point: All governments rely on the persecution of groups (almost always minorities) for their continued power. Government would cease to exist were it not persecuting people. You're simply quibbling with Eich over who gets persecuted (and more basically about who's morals are superior). Keep in mind that his "intolerant action" was only intolerant if the state dictating personal morality is good (I would note that things like murder are uni-directional intra-personal actions and thus quite different). I think a better answer is to abolish government-dictated marriage and allow people free reign in their private lives as this satisfies both the gay community and the anti-gay community while also solving the issues of less-vocal groups (eg. polygamists). In fact the general principle of government staying out of citizen's private lives solves a whole host of issues.
- danpalmer 13y agoMaybe I didn't say this in the right way. What I'm really saying is that I will 'tolerate' or accept any view point as being fine, and entirely a persons right to hold, unless they are holding one that is actively intolerant to others. I don't think part of being tolerant is to sit back while others are abused by those who don't share our views. It's his personal right to hold his belief, but once he put that into action by making the donation, or if he had voiced his views publicly, that now means we have a duty to hold him accountable, rather than sit back and let him do what he wants. In this case, I think demanding Eich not lead Mozilla because of his views is an appropriate way to hold him accountable.
- sehr 13y agocould this be considered recursive?
- Jean-Philipe 13y agoI accidentally upvoted this post. Can I undo my vote?
- smallsharptools 13y agoI'm not sorry. He can disagree with other people and make decisions about his own life, but once he gives money to a cause that is working to restrict the basic rights and freedoms of others he's crossed the line. I'm not sorry one bit.
- pbhjpbhj 13y agoAll CEOs that [don't|] support abortion should be fired then?
- enekomh 13y agoThis is bullshit. I am not discriminating him. I am punishing him with the power I have (my freedom to not use the products of his company) to punish his discriminating point of view. The same way he has the right to use his money to help a discriminating law go ahead, I have the right not to use his products and criticize his opinions.
- unreal37 13y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but didn't Prop 8 pass? I mean, didn't the majority of California voters vote in favor of Prop 8? It was only struck down after by the courts. Seems like there's a lot of people who should be forced to resign from their jobs over this. Not just one.
- wonderzombie 13y agoWe failed him? How overwrought can you get? He wasn't incarcerated, executed, sued, or tried for a crime. He lost his job. As we're all fond of implying here, there's no right to employment, let alone the right to be a CEO. Don't hide behind "meritocracy" and "tolerance" to defend morally repugnant ideals. You demean those words and yourself. You reveal your lack of understanding of what an open and free society means when it comes to the more vulnerable, less privileged members of same.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> He lost his job. He quit his job. It may be that he was forced to quit to avoid being fired, but that's not at all clear.
- dgivney 13y agoBasic humanity, that's what we do.