9 ms·

How Rare Are Anti-Gay-Marriage Donations in Silicon Valley?

84 points by Thrymr 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
briantakita 13y ago
> So Eich was in a 17 percent minority relative to the top companies in Silicon Valley. Let's find all the heretics and burn them! j/k I'm glad that we are beginning to have a rational discussion about the implications of internet mob justice. I hope it continues. Please refrain from flagging rational points of view that you don't agree with. That's called censorship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  No no, it's only censorship if I agree with the message! ;)
- kenjackson 13y ago
  Unlike most other politicized topics, I don't think there is a rational position on opposing gay marriage in the US. At least none I have heard yet.
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    It's very easy to think that the other side of an issue does not hold a rational position. We use the same brain to hold hold our own opinion, and to evaluate the opinions of others. In situations outside the scientific method there is little way to objectively know which is the "right" or "rational" position.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    kenjackson 14 hours ago | link | parent | Anyone with half a brain knew that Obama did not really oppose gay marriage. When he switched views no one was really surprised... At least of those with half a brain.
    - kenjackson 13y ago
      Can you explain what that is supposed to mean?
  - danudey 13y ago
    This is an important point that I've been bringing up whenever someone tries to discuss this: what reason is there to prevent someone else from getting gay married? The only reason that I've seen is 'my beliefs say it's not okay, so you're not allowed to do it even if you don't share them'. Which comes across as spite, more than anything. 'I'm going to prevent you from getting married even though it costs me nothing to allow it', and in fact it cost Eich a thousand dollars to try to prevent it. I can't imagine spending a thousand dollars to prevent someone from doing something they wanted to do if it wasn't going to affect me in any tangible way. That's why Eich seemed like an untrustworthy choice for CEO: this doesn't seem like a rational decision for a person to make.
    - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
      a) Opposition to all marriage. b) Insistence on having marriage be concretely defined as "one man and one woman" and potentially introduce similar but differently named unions for non-traditional couples. This actually has some basis, as marriage used to be widely defined as such (even in dictionaries) until the debate of gay marriage led to a shift in terminology. Those are two that I can name of. Note that I personally belong to argument A. Not that it's a vehement opposition, just a personal view on the futility of it.
      - protomyth 13y ago
        I can tell you the position of some of the churches that funded Prop 8[1]. It has very little to do with the rights of others. It is basically the fear of the chain that goes from: suing a wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs[2]. The attack on Catholic Family Services and other churches providing adoption services. Next, Catholic Nuns and other church organizations being forced to buy healthcare that provides for abortions. With the thought it will lead to a church being sued to allow a marriage that does not meet their doctrine. The churches have learned a great deal from the ACLU given its constant suing of any religious display. They know you fight every inch of the way and don't compromise, since your opponents won't. They are fearful of the state forcing doctrine on them. The 1st amendment is very fragile given what has happened to the 4th, 5th 1) once again, I don't believe in state sponsored marriage of any type beyond basic contractual law between 2+ people meeting certain biological conditions (no possible inbreeding). I also have some problems about lack of consideration for the situation of conjoined twins and current rules given our ability to allow them a healthy life will exceed our ability to separate them in vitro. 2) an artist is a different discussion then a restaurant, motel, hospital, etc.
  - paulhodge 13y ago
    Instead of bloviating you could always look up what the arguments in favor were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Proponents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)... And for any proposed law change, there's always some annoying folks who agree with the overall spirit of the change, but oppose because they disagree with some specific details. Like, maybe the new law doesn't go far enough, or doesn't have the right wording. Or maybe they just object to the process by which it was created or campaigned for.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      From your link: heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Apparently the prop 8 argument is basically a massive appeal to tradition fallacy?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
      OK, will do: Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society" Totally baseless assertion. So was the right to vote only belonging to white male landowners at the end of the 18th century. [T]hat leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" In my 13 years of public schooling I don't remember any of my teachers ever discussing marriage. [And] that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." If you don't like gay marriage, you don't have to get gay married. You're more than welcome to get married to a member of the opposite sex, like I—ostensibly—will do at some point.
    - bashinator 13y ago
      Let's do look at those arguments you referenced. > Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society." This is not an argument, it's a statement of opinion. I'd be interested in seeing what facts back it. > that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" This is making the presumption that gay marriage is not okay, which again, is an opinion without any backing facts. > and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." This is a non-sequitur - gays are not trying to redefine marriage for everyone else. Nothing pertaining to hetero marriage would be changed in the slightest by allowing gays to participate in the institution.
  - hippoman 13y ago
    There isn't a rational position on opposing marriage between siblings, yet it's still illegal in the US. Of course there are reasons about damage to children, bullying of children, etc but fundamentally people are just repulsed by the idea so they don't want anyone to do it and it's still illegal. Gay marriage is only one of various types of marriage that are unfairly discriminated against. Fortunately gay marriage might now allow a father and son to marry each other, which may help open the minds of the mob.
- lucian1900 13y ago
  Finding all the "heretics" sounds good to me. Someone that hateful deserves public shame.
- vertex-four 13y ago
  The question is, exactly which behaviours would you suggest we not engage in? Should we not use our right of freedom of speech to criticise others? Should we not use our right of freedom of association to choose not to associate with people and organisations which do not support our moral beliefs, and what we see to be our human rights? The only thing I can think of is that Mozilla are to blame for firing him, except that Mozilla has a (limited) freedom to choose their employees. As far as I can tell, even in the UK, where we have rather far-reaching employment discrimination law, companies have the right to fire people for political actions, although not for pure philosophical beliefs[0] or being a member of a political party. I could be wrong there, however. So the question is, exactly who acted in the wrong and exactly how, in a way which does not lead to a slippery slope? [0] http://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/2011/05/19/what-is-a-philosophical-belief/ http://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/2011/05/19/what-is-a-phil...
- 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
  Once upon a time, OKCupid had amazing blog posts with fascinating analyses of their data. The blog posts stopped. Match.com acquired them. And their data-centric roots seemed to have eroded badly. The message they put up -- "If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly eight percent of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal." [^1] -- was pretty sloppy hyperbole. As if 100% of the 8% were going to get married. As if OKCupid were marriage-oriented like Eharmony. Although a mob has many members, OKCupid is the company that chose to crank this into a higher gear, and volunteer to be Conseja de la Suprema y General Inquisición. [^2] Marriage equality is right. Purges are wrong. Shamers should be ashamed. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/okcupid-to-firefox-users-dont-use-mozilla-software/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/okcupid-to-firefox-u... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Composition_of_the_tribunals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Compositio...
  - scintill76 13y ago
    Anyone else want to find out if OKCupid uses any Intel products, and if so, start harassing them over it? Since the data shows Intel employees had pretty strong support for Prop 8. I feel kind of guilty about this, as it feels like fighting fire with fire, but I would hope it would illustrate that this sort of witch hunting and "six degrees of separation" will lead to absolutely stupid results if applied to the utmost degree. P.S. Not to mention they surely use Javascript, another technology tainted by Mr. Eich himself. They harass users of "his" browser, but don't seem to see an issue with their own use of another of his projects.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Even if they don't use any Intel products, I'm positive they use software that was developed on Intel products. My pitchfork is itching for some action.
      - 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
        I'm conflicted. "Two wrongs don't make a right". So yes maybe the Match CEO donated to similar causes in Utah, but do we really want to go down that road? I don't. What I would like to see happen -- not vindictively, but out of a sense of basic fairness and justice -- is a resignation at OKCupid. Also resignations from Mozilla board members, such as the chair, and whoever was on the executive search committee. The resignations would be not due to political beliefs, but for very poor judgement and lack for competence.
elwell 13y ago
Interesting stat there on Intel.
- scintill76 13y ago
  Clearly they have a pervasive anti-gay culture growing over there. It's not even just one guy at the top, it's throughout! I'm sure everyone who called for boycotting Mozilla will boycott Intel, too, right? I'm sure OKCupid long ago purged themselves of any vile Intel products?
- justincormack 13y ago
  Clearly it is culturally very different. Not sure if the age distribution is very different, which could be correlated.
- revelation 13y ago
  I wonder what the age breakup of their SV workforce is. Intel didn't get big on software, so presumably their workers are a generation apart from those of Google.
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    I wonder how many weren't in SV, though looking at their list of offices in CA, most of them seem to be in liberal parts of the state. Maybe the whole Irvine office was the 60%. ;-)
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Google is still only 16 years old; Intel is 46. Yes, you can hire people mid-career, but only one of these two companies has really had enough time to grow a full crop of wizened engineers. As we all know, older folks tend to vote more conservative.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ltcoleman 13y ago
Isn't the point of a democracy to allow the people to have a voice? It is starting to seem like many progressive groups are trying to vilify an individual's freedom of speech/thought. The Brendan Eich controversy highlights the issue as of late. Do I share all of the values/beliefs that my CEO does? No. Should I boycott my CEO for having conflicting values/beliefs? Maybe. If I am totally against something, then I should stand up for my beliefs. I believe everything starts to collapse when I try to use my beliefs to rally against another individual. I have the belief that our founding fathers knew America would be a melting pot of religions, cultures, and beliefs and that is why they established state's rights to accommodate the beautiful array of citizens of which would make the United States of America. If we continue to push one set of beliefs how different are we than North Korea, Iran, etc? I am not very political, and I have many left and right wing perspectives. I am just saddened to see our country starting to stumble on a slippery slope.
- briantakita 13y ago
  It's the same old game. Demagoguery. We had the Terrorism scare. We had the WMD scare. We had the communist scare. We had the gay culture scare. Now we have the anti-gay, anti-feminist, & "rape culture" scare.
- ryguytilidie 13y ago
  Your point seems to be that the white, rich male who donated money to a campaign to take away civil rights is the REAL victim here. Not sure I can agree with that.
  - scintill76 13y ago
    Can you agree that you should practice equality, by not judging controversies based on the wealth, race, and gender of the persons involved?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bargl 13y ago
My parents own a small business and are personally against Gay Marriage. I admit that hoping that my privacy will be respected enough that no one will try to find them and harass them because of this... They are generally good people who are sometimes misguided in their thoughts. However, they don't let that creep into their business and have the utmost respect for people in general. Yes, even Gay people. Just because they believe that Homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean that they are opposed to people who are gay. I'd be devastated if their business suffered because of their personal viewpoints. The mob mentality leads to situations where we round up everyone who is Japanese, Jewish, Homophobic, etc. and get rid of them. Let's be rational here and let people live with their beliefs, and lets not persecute people for their beliefs because of a time/culture/religion they were born into or the sexual orientation they were born with. EDIT: Just because you are opposed to someone getting married doesn't mean you hate that group. People who have that viewpoint frequently believe that homosexuality will degrade the morality of society. Yes, they are wrong and misguided, but they aren't ALL hateful.
- adrr 13y ago
  Do they donate money help fund laws to remove people's rights? Thats big thing, its one thing to be against gay marriage its another thing to fund campaigns to ban it. Obama is against gay marriage, but he has never taken any action to prevent gays from getting married or recognizing gay marriages. Thats the key difference. If the former Mozilla CEO just tweeted he's against gay marriage, i am willing to bet he'd still have a job.
  - Xelank 13y ago
    Double standards here. You wouldn't be against anyone who donated to the cause because you think it's 'right'. Now substitute 'gay marriage' with 'legalizing drugs'. See where your argument is going? "He's wrong because he doesn't agree with me and took action to oppose it". If people never took action to push their beliefs then we'll still have slavery in USA. We're a democratic society, and people are free to voice their opinion or donate to campaigns that support their beliefs as long as it is legal.
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
What this shows is a great disparity between companies, i.e. corporate culture apparently attracts and/or fosters bigotry. (Intel, wtf?) Which only supports the notion that Mozilla, given it's clear stance on equality and inclusiveness, should not be lead by a bigot like Eich. It was a completely inappropriate choice to begin with. On a side note, I am disgusted by the way this is being artificially politicized by using terms like "progressive" and "liberal". Supporting equal civil rights for all is not a political view, not does being conservative mean being anti-gay. This is not a political issue. You wouldn't call someone who is against institutionalized racism a "liberal" or "progressive". The attempts to frame bigotry as politics is probably the most sickening part of this whole debacle.
johngalt 13y ago
I completely support the right of people to gather statistics like this and make informed decisions about their consumer habits. I also support the right of Mozilla to make employment decisions based upon this. Next up. Anyone who has ever supported abortion rights suddenly can't buy a house or gain employment anywhere in the state of Texas.
sssbc 13y ago
So, I've got a pitchfork with Intel's name on it. Need someone with a torch, similarly labeled. Preferably dozens. Anyone with me? (crickets...) OkStupid, I can count on you, right? Surely you can tell AMD vs. Intel inside with your cool-o web tech, data analysis, ... (yeah, go ahead and down vote me, doesn't make me wrong).
jqm 13y ago
Personally I don't believe in marriage at all, at least from a government perspective. Civil unions for all I say... let customary "marriage" take place in your church or synagogue or wooded grove or whatever and have no bearing on anyone else. By now it seems pretty obvious that committed people should be entitled to the same legal protections regardless of sexual orientation... That being said... not believing gay marriage is appropriate is NOT the same as believing similarly about inter-racial marriage. Some people (and I am not among these) feel marriage is a venue for biological reproduction and raising of children. And no matter how many rights gay people have, until our technology advances a bit further this is not something they are able to do. An inter-racial couple on the other hand can. So please... stop with the "This is just like banning inter-racial marriage!" nonsense. In many peoples minds (again, not mine) it isn't. And yes Eich was done badly. And OKCupid are bad actors in my opinion and should be called out on their nonsense. Particularly in view of threatening an open source browser.
- bashinator 13y ago
  If marriage is a venue for biological reproduction, then people shouldn't get the tax breaks and other legal benefits (hospital visitation, etc) until they've done so. Maybe the marriage certificate should be provisional until the first birth? Also, adoption certainly shouldn't count, since that's something same-sex couples can also do.
  - jqm 13y ago
    Oh, I agree 100% on the tax breaks and legal benefits. This is skewed in favor of the "traditional" at the moment and this isn't fair. But, part of societies job is to insure future generations. Bottom line.... gay people can't do this.
    - bashinator 13y ago
      Stable high-income gay couples can't give adopted children a far better life opportunity (and hence increased tax income and lower social welfare costs for society at large), than if those children bounced around in foster homes until aging out?
anigbrowl 13y ago
I was on the other side of this debate (ie against prop 8, pro gay marriage), and we donated and engaged in some advocacy in support of that view. I strongly believe in the idea of marriage as a civil rights issue which should be available to any pair of consenting adults (and perhaps configurations other than pairs, if I'm going to be intellectually consistent about it). On the other hand, I also strongly believe in people's right to hold other points of view. I would certainly want no truck, as an individual or as a customer of a business, with someone who made a habit of expressing the differing opinion in hateful terms or by actions designed to injure the subjects of that opinion (eg firing gay employees or refusing to grant benefits to same-sex spouses or domestic partners), but on the other hand I don't really have a problem with someone who treats everyone consistently and with respect, although that person might have quite different beliefs from me about how things should be. The thing is, there might be a wide range of things motivating that belief, from some deep pragmatic, religious, or moral conviction to simple antipathy. Unless the person acts or speaks to signal what those motivations are, I don't see any point in trying to make judgments about them or by extension of the person, for the same reason I wouldn't want people making extrapolations about my character from a single data point. This hasn't stopped a lot of other people from demonizing Eich on the basis of his donation, without giving any apparent weight to his behavior at Mozilla or the experience of LGBT people who work with him there (several of whom have blogged in support of his appointment notwithstanding their disagreement with his support of prop 8). Not being gay it's easy for me not to take the issue personally, but I'm inclined to give a lot of weight to people who are gay and deal with him on a regular basis. The whole business has an unsavory air of internet bullying to it, to be frank. I'm not thinking of people like Catlin Hampton who went public about their discomfort with Eich's appointment so much as the large number of tweets, comments and so on that adopted a confrontational stance and made it into a zero-sum binary issue, eg people calling him 'Eich(mann)' and equating him with the late and largely unlamented Fred Phelps. Characterizations of this sort don't seem any better to me than characterizations of gay people as perverts or suchlike. Bandwagon behavior seems to bring out the worst in people and reminds me of why I generally dislike being in groups.
- hippoman 13y ago
  Whenever people have strong views like this, I'm skeptical how hostile they'll be to innocent people who don't fit their sharply defined worldview. In the UK a 16 year old "adult" can marry a 40 year old. If you support that right are you are active in opposing the 18-years age of consent laws in some US states? If you don't support it, do you see the UK laws as enabling child abuse? My point is that when you put arbitrary conditions on what you're going to accept, you can end up including and excluding some people unfairly. How about just "as long as nobody is harmed"?
Xelank 13y ago
Great analysis here. Really shows our double standard and mob mentality. I'm not against people boycotting Mozilla (because that's their choice) but the whole things is just a big hotheaded mobfest (like all the other mobfest in the past).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

84 points by Thrymr 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

> So Eich was in a 17 percent minority relative to the top companies in Silicon Valley. Let's find all the heretics and burn them! j/k I'm glad that we are beginning to have a rational discussion about the implications of internet mob justice. I hope it continues. Please refrain from flagging rational points of view that you don't agree with. That's called censorship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

sliverstorm 13y ago
No no, it's only censorship if I agree with the message! ;)
kenjackson 13y ago
Unlike most other politicized topics, I don't think there is a rational position on opposing gay marriage in the US. At least none I have heard yet.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  It's very easy to think that the other side of an issue does not hold a rational position. We use the same brain to hold hold our own opinion, and to evaluate the opinions of others. In situations outside the scientific method there is little way to objectively know which is the "right" or "rational" position.
- 001sky 13y ago
  kenjackson 14 hours ago | link | parent | Anyone with half a brain knew that Obama did not really oppose gay marriage. When he switched views no one was really surprised... At least of those with half a brain.
  - kenjackson 13y ago
    Can you explain what that is supposed to mean?
- danudey 13y ago
  This is an important point that I've been bringing up whenever someone tries to discuss this: what reason is there to prevent someone else from getting gay married? The only reason that I've seen is 'my beliefs say it's not okay, so you're not allowed to do it even if you don't share them'. Which comes across as spite, more than anything. 'I'm going to prevent you from getting married even though it costs me nothing to allow it', and in fact it cost Eich a thousand dollars to try to prevent it. I can't imagine spending a thousand dollars to prevent someone from doing something they wanted to do if it wasn't going to affect me in any tangible way. That's why Eich seemed like an untrustworthy choice for CEO: this doesn't seem like a rational decision for a person to make.
  - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    a) Opposition to all marriage. b) Insistence on having marriage be concretely defined as "one man and one woman" and potentially introduce similar but differently named unions for non-traditional couples. This actually has some basis, as marriage used to be widely defined as such (even in dictionaries) until the debate of gay marriage led to a shift in terminology. Those are two that I can name of. Note that I personally belong to argument A. Not that it's a vehement opposition, just a personal view on the futility of it.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      I can tell you the position of some of the churches that funded Prop 8[1]. It has very little to do with the rights of others. It is basically the fear of the chain that goes from: suing a wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs[2]. The attack on Catholic Family Services and other churches providing adoption services. Next, Catholic Nuns and other church organizations being forced to buy healthcare that provides for abortions. With the thought it will lead to a church being sued to allow a marriage that does not meet their doctrine. The churches have learned a great deal from the ACLU given its constant suing of any religious display. They know you fight every inch of the way and don't compromise, since your opponents won't. They are fearful of the state forcing doctrine on them. The 1st amendment is very fragile given what has happened to the 4th, 5th 1) once again, I don't believe in state sponsored marriage of any type beyond basic contractual law between 2+ people meeting certain biological conditions (no possible inbreeding). I also have some problems about lack of consideration for the situation of conjoined twins and current rules given our ability to allow them a healthy life will exceed our ability to separate them in vitro. 2) an artist is a different discussion then a restaurant, motel, hospital, etc.
- paulhodge 13y ago
  Instead of bloviating you could always look up what the arguments in favor were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Proponents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)... And for any proposed law change, there's always some annoying folks who agree with the overall spirit of the change, but oppose because they disagree with some specific details. Like, maybe the new law doesn't go far enough, or doesn't have the right wording. Or maybe they just object to the process by which it was created or campaigned for.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    From your link: heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Apparently the prop 8 argument is basically a massive appeal to tradition fallacy?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
    OK, will do: Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society" Totally baseless assertion. So was the right to vote only belonging to white male landowners at the end of the 18th century. [T]hat leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" In my 13 years of public schooling I don't remember any of my teachers ever discussing marriage. [And] that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." If you don't like gay marriage, you don't have to get gay married. You're more than welcome to get married to a member of the opposite sex, like I—ostensibly—will do at some point.
  - bashinator 13y ago
    Let's do look at those arguments you referenced. > Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society." This is not an argument, it's a statement of opinion. I'd be interested in seeing what facts back it. > that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" This is making the presumption that gay marriage is not okay, which again, is an opinion without any backing facts. > and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." This is a non-sequitur - gays are not trying to redefine marriage for everyone else. Nothing pertaining to hetero marriage would be changed in the slightest by allowing gays to participate in the institution.
- hippoman 13y ago
  There isn't a rational position on opposing marriage between siblings, yet it's still illegal in the US. Of course there are reasons about damage to children, bullying of children, etc but fundamentally people are just repulsed by the idea so they don't want anyone to do it and it's still illegal. Gay marriage is only one of various types of marriage that are unfairly discriminated against. Fortunately gay marriage might now allow a father and son to marry each other, which may help open the minds of the mob.
lucian1900 13y ago
Finding all the "heretics" sounds good to me. Someone that hateful deserves public shame.
vertex-four 13y ago
The question is, exactly which behaviours would you suggest we not engage in? Should we not use our right of freedom of speech to criticise others? Should we not use our right of freedom of association to choose not to associate with people and organisations which do not support our moral beliefs, and what we see to be our human rights? The only thing I can think of is that Mozilla are to blame for firing him, except that Mozilla has a (limited) freedom to choose their employees. As far as I can tell, even in the UK, where we have rather far-reaching employment discrimination law, companies have the right to fire people for political actions, although not for pure philosophical beliefs[0] or being a member of a political party. I could be wrong there, however. So the question is, exactly who acted in the wrong and exactly how, in a way which does not lead to a slippery slope? [0] http://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/2011/05/19/what-is-a-philosophical-belief/ http://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/2011/05/19/what-is-a-phil...
6cxs2hd6 13y ago
Once upon a time, OKCupid had amazing blog posts with fascinating analyses of their data. The blog posts stopped. Match.com acquired them. And their data-centric roots seemed to have eroded badly. The message they put up -- "If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly eight percent of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal." [^1] -- was pretty sloppy hyperbole. As if 100% of the 8% were going to get married. As if OKCupid were marriage-oriented like Eharmony. Although a mob has many members, OKCupid is the company that chose to crank this into a higher gear, and volunteer to be Conseja de la Suprema y General Inquisición. [^2] Marriage equality is right. Purges are wrong. Shamers should be ashamed. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/okcupid-to-firefox-users-dont-use-mozilla-software/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/okcupid-to-firefox-u... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Composition_of_the_tribunals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Compositio...
- scintill76 13y ago
  Anyone else want to find out if OKCupid uses any Intel products, and if so, start harassing them over it? Since the data shows Intel employees had pretty strong support for Prop 8. I feel kind of guilty about this, as it feels like fighting fire with fire, but I would hope it would illustrate that this sort of witch hunting and "six degrees of separation" will lead to absolutely stupid results if applied to the utmost degree. P.S. Not to mention they surely use Javascript, another technology tainted by Mr. Eich himself. They harass users of "his" browser, but don't seem to see an issue with their own use of another of his projects.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Even if they don't use any Intel products, I'm positive they use software that was developed on Intel products. My pitchfork is itching for some action.
    - 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
      I'm conflicted. "Two wrongs don't make a right". So yes maybe the Match CEO donated to similar causes in Utah, but do we really want to go down that road? I don't. What I would like to see happen -- not vindictively, but out of a sense of basic fairness and justice -- is a resignation at OKCupid. Also resignations from Mozilla board members, such as the chair, and whoever was on the executive search committee. The resignations would be not due to political beliefs, but for very poor judgement and lack for competence.

elwell 13y ago

Interesting stat there on Intel.

scintill76 13y ago
Clearly they have a pervasive anti-gay culture growing over there. It's not even just one guy at the top, it's throughout! I'm sure everyone who called for boycotting Mozilla will boycott Intel, too, right? I'm sure OKCupid long ago purged themselves of any vile Intel products?
justincormack 13y ago
Clearly it is culturally very different. Not sure if the age distribution is very different, which could be correlated.
revelation 13y ago
I wonder what the age breakup of their SV workforce is. Intel didn't get big on software, so presumably their workers are a generation apart from those of Google.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  I wonder how many weren't in SV, though looking at their list of offices in CA, most of them seem to be in liberal parts of the state. Maybe the whole Irvine office was the 60%. ;-)
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Google is still only 16 years old; Intel is 46. Yes, you can hire people mid-career, but only one of these two companies has really had enough time to grow a full crop of wizened engineers. As we all know, older folks tend to vote more conservative.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ltcoleman 13y ago

Isn't the point of a democracy to allow the people to have a voice? It is starting to seem like many progressive groups are trying to vilify an individual's freedom of speech/thought. The Brendan Eich controversy highlights the issue as of late. Do I share all of the values/beliefs that my CEO does? No. Should I boycott my CEO for having conflicting values/beliefs? Maybe. If I am totally against something, then I should stand up for my beliefs. I believe everything starts to collapse when I try to use my beliefs to rally against another individual. I have the belief that our founding fathers knew America would be a melting pot of religions, cultures, and beliefs and that is why they established state's rights to accommodate the beautiful array of citizens of which would make the United States of America. If we continue to push one set of beliefs how different are we than North Korea, Iran, etc? I am not very political, and I have many left and right wing perspectives. I am just saddened to see our country starting to stumble on a slippery slope.

briantakita 13y ago
It's the same old game. Demagoguery. We had the Terrorism scare. We had the WMD scare. We had the communist scare. We had the gay culture scare. Now we have the anti-gay, anti-feminist, & "rape culture" scare.
ryguytilidie 13y ago
Your point seems to be that the white, rich male who donated money to a campaign to take away civil rights is the REAL victim here. Not sure I can agree with that.
- scintill76 13y ago
  Can you agree that you should practice equality, by not judging controversies based on the wealth, race, and gender of the persons involved?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

bargl 13y ago

My parents own a small business and are personally against Gay Marriage. I admit that hoping that my privacy will be respected enough that no one will try to find them and harass them because of this... They are generally good people who are sometimes misguided in their thoughts. However, they don't let that creep into their business and have the utmost respect for people in general. Yes, even Gay people. Just because they believe that Homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean that they are opposed to people who are gay. I'd be devastated if their business suffered because of their personal viewpoints. The mob mentality leads to situations where we round up everyone who is Japanese, Jewish, Homophobic, etc. and get rid of them. Let's be rational here and let people live with their beliefs, and lets not persecute people for their beliefs because of a time/culture/religion they were born into or the sexual orientation they were born with. EDIT: Just because you are opposed to someone getting married doesn't mean you hate that group. People who have that viewpoint frequently believe that homosexuality will degrade the morality of society. Yes, they are wrong and misguided, but they aren't ALL hateful.

adrr 13y ago
Do they donate money help fund laws to remove people's rights? Thats big thing, its one thing to be against gay marriage its another thing to fund campaigns to ban it. Obama is against gay marriage, but he has never taken any action to prevent gays from getting married or recognizing gay marriages. Thats the key difference. If the former Mozilla CEO just tweeted he's against gay marriage, i am willing to bet he'd still have a job.
- Xelank 13y ago
  Double standards here. You wouldn't be against anyone who donated to the cause because you think it's 'right'. Now substitute 'gay marriage' with 'legalizing drugs'. See where your argument is going? "He's wrong because he doesn't agree with me and took action to oppose it". If people never took action to push their beliefs then we'll still have slavery in USA. We're a democratic society, and people are free to voice their opinion or donate to campaigns that support their beliefs as long as it is legal.

bowlofpetunias 13y ago

What this shows is a great disparity between companies, i.e. corporate culture apparently attracts and/or fosters bigotry. (Intel, wtf?) Which only supports the notion that Mozilla, given it's clear stance on equality and inclusiveness, should not be lead by a bigot like Eich. It was a completely inappropriate choice to begin with. On a side note, I am disgusted by the way this is being artificially politicized by using terms like "progressive" and "liberal". Supporting equal civil rights for all is not a political view, not does being conservative mean being anti-gay. This is not a political issue. You wouldn't call someone who is against institutionalized racism a "liberal" or "progressive". The attempts to frame bigotry as politics is probably the most sickening part of this whole debacle.

johngalt 13y ago

I completely support the right of people to gather statistics like this and make informed decisions about their consumer habits. I also support the right of Mozilla to make employment decisions based upon this. Next up. Anyone who has ever supported abortion rights suddenly can't buy a house or gain employment anywhere in the state of Texas.

sssbc 13y ago

So, I've got a pitchfork with Intel's name on it. Need someone with a torch, similarly labeled. Preferably dozens. Anyone with me? (crickets...) OkStupid, I can count on you, right? Surely you can tell AMD vs. Intel inside with your cool-o web tech, data analysis, ... (yeah, go ahead and down vote me, doesn't make me wrong).

jqm 13y ago

Personally I don't believe in marriage at all, at least from a government perspective. Civil unions for all I say... let customary "marriage" take place in your church or synagogue or wooded grove or whatever and have no bearing on anyone else. By now it seems pretty obvious that committed people should be entitled to the same legal protections regardless of sexual orientation... That being said... not believing gay marriage is appropriate is NOT the same as believing similarly about inter-racial marriage. Some people (and I am not among these) feel marriage is a venue for biological reproduction and raising of children. And no matter how many rights gay people have, until our technology advances a bit further this is not something they are able to do. An inter-racial couple on the other hand can. So please... stop with the "This is just like banning inter-racial marriage!" nonsense. In many peoples minds (again, not mine) it isn't. And yes Eich was done badly. And OKCupid are bad actors in my opinion and should be called out on their nonsense. Particularly in view of threatening an open source browser.

bashinator 13y ago
If marriage is a venue for biological reproduction, then people shouldn't get the tax breaks and other legal benefits (hospital visitation, etc) until they've done so. Maybe the marriage certificate should be provisional until the first birth? Also, adoption certainly shouldn't count, since that's something same-sex couples can also do.
- jqm 13y ago
  Oh, I agree 100% on the tax breaks and legal benefits. This is skewed in favor of the "traditional" at the moment and this isn't fair. But, part of societies job is to insure future generations. Bottom line.... gay people can't do this.
  - bashinator 13y ago
    Stable high-income gay couples can't give adopted children a far better life opportunity (and hence increased tax income and lower social welfare costs for society at large), than if those children bounced around in foster homes until aging out?

anigbrowl 13y ago

I was on the other side of this debate (ie against prop 8, pro gay marriage), and we donated and engaged in some advocacy in support of that view. I strongly believe in the idea of marriage as a civil rights issue which should be available to any pair of consenting adults (and perhaps configurations other than pairs, if I'm going to be intellectually consistent about it). On the other hand, I also strongly believe in people's right to hold other points of view. I would certainly want no truck, as an individual or as a customer of a business, with someone who made a habit of expressing the differing opinion in hateful terms or by actions designed to injure the subjects of that opinion (eg firing gay employees or refusing to grant benefits to same-sex spouses or domestic partners), but on the other hand I don't really have a problem with someone who treats everyone consistently and with respect, although that person might have quite different beliefs from me about how things should be. The thing is, there might be a wide range of things motivating that belief, from some deep pragmatic, religious, or moral conviction to simple antipathy. Unless the person acts or speaks to signal what those motivations are, I don't see any point in trying to make judgments about them or by extension of the person, for the same reason I wouldn't want people making extrapolations about my character from a single data point. This hasn't stopped a lot of other people from demonizing Eich on the basis of his donation, without giving any apparent weight to his behavior at Mozilla or the experience of LGBT people who work with him there (several of whom have blogged in support of his appointment notwithstanding their disagreement with his support of prop 8). Not being gay it's easy for me not to take the issue personally, but I'm inclined to give a lot of weight to people who are gay and deal with him on a regular basis. The whole business has an unsavory air of internet bullying to it, to be frank. I'm not thinking of people like Catlin Hampton who went public about their discomfort with Eich's appointment so much as the large number of tweets, comments and so on that adopted a confrontational stance and made it into a zero-sum binary issue, eg people calling him 'Eich(mann)' and equating him with the late and largely unlamented Fred Phelps. Characterizations of this sort don't seem any better to me than characterizations of gay people as perverts or suchlike. Bandwagon behavior seems to bring out the worst in people and reminds me of why I generally dislike being in groups.

hippoman 13y ago
Whenever people have strong views like this, I'm skeptical how hostile they'll be to innocent people who don't fit their sharply defined worldview. In the UK a 16 year old "adult" can marry a 40 year old. If you support that right are you are active in opposing the 18-years age of consent laws in some US states? If you don't support it, do you see the UK laws as enabling child abuse? My point is that when you put arbitrary conditions on what you're going to accept, you can end up including and excluding some people unfairly. How about just "as long as nobody is harmed"?

Xelank 13y ago

Great analysis here. Really shows our double standard and mob mentality. I'm not against people boycotting Mozilla (because that's their choice) but the whole things is just a big hotheaded mobfest (like all the other mobfest in the past).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]