5 ms·

Would you be fine if Eich had donated $1000 to an group trying to stop inter-racial marriage? Inter-racial marriage issues are not some far past thing, "In Oct

Would you be fine if Eich had donated $1000 to an group trying to stop inter-racial marriage? Inter-racial marriage issues are not some far past thing, "In October 2009, Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana justice of the peace, refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple..." In your mind, is being against interracial marriage just an opinion people shouldn't be held to account for... or like me, would you say "of course fire the racist asshole".

coolj 13y ago
> an opinion people shouldn't be held to account for... I believe people should be held publicly accountable for their actions, not their thoughts/opinions, no matter how strongly I may disagree with their ideas. I wouldn't be too worried about a CEO of Mozilla who had at some point contributed $1000 to a group trying to stop interracial- (or gay-, or plural-, or cats-and-dogs-) marriage by itself, if it were the person's own money. There are benign reasons a person may support such views, however misguided they may be, without being motivated by hate. So nothing in that contribution alone to makes me suspect the person would behave unfairly in the workplace towards the group of people supporting such marriage or trying to be married. To bring it back from the thought experiment to the current situation, I'm pretty sure a lot of people worked with Brendan at Mozilla, and I haven't heard of anyone coming forward with complaints of homophobia against him after working with/for him... so yeah.
- MetaCosm 13y ago
  Then we simply disagree, actively pursuing hateful legislation is something I am not compelled to overlook. This is something he did in public, on the record, with full knowledge. If someone actively pushed for racist laws, I would want them booted as well. So I guess we simply disagree on this issue.
  - coolj 13y ago
    What if it was a donation to Americans United or Planned Parenthood? There are people who earnestly believe that AU hates religions and-or religious people, or that PP hates traditional family structure. What if he donated to a group that was against the Affordable Heathcare Act? What if he donated to a group that was for it? There are many reasons why people may support different causes or groups, and a contribution in and of itself doesn't do anything to show that it is motivated by hate or fear. You need to look at the person's other actions in order to better determine that.
tzs 13y ago
> Would you be fine if Eich had donated $1000 to an group trying to stop inter-racial marriage? If it were 1875, and if by "fine", you mean fine with the donor becoming a CEO rather than fine with them as a person, then I'd be fine with it. Change that to 2014 and I would not be fine with it. These judgements need to be made in context of the times. I find it hard to fault individuals for thinking like and acting in accord with the large majority of their contemporaries, even if I think the majority is not taking the right position.
- MetaCosm 13y ago
  The speed at which the "public" comes to a majority (and overwhelming trajectory) behind an issue is faster and faster due in part due to Eich's technology. 61% of young Republican leaning voters support marriage equality, the issue is over, just waiting out those who haven't yet realized this is no longer a debate, like Eich, to catch up.
zimbatm 13y ago
I don't really believe in marriage as an institution but think it's great as an expression of love. It's a way to say to your friends and family that you're in love and it's going to stay that way. In that sense I don't see why it should be a privilege to heterosexual white people. But I'm not going to judge someone based on a single thing. Who am I to say that Eich is homophobic based on a single variable ? I don't know that person. The only person qualified to say something are the ones working with him, all the rest is noise and disrespectful. It's tragic in some way. The LGBT movement is trying to raise awareness by fighting against prejudice. Because you're gay/lesbian/... people will expect you to behave in certain ways. And it hurts because you're denied of just being a human and yourself. And now Eich has been judged with prejudice. I don't this it's fair. People place him into the anti-gay camp and so by definition he becomes all the wrongs that this group represents and nothing rational comes out of this. Also who are we to take justice into our own hands ? This feels very wrong to me. Going back to the dark ages, just declare someone anti-gay and make him burn. I understand that it's not possible to be impartial on every subject but isn't it possible to elevate ourselves above that ?
- MetaCosm 13y ago
  He actively gave money to an issue with a single goal of limiting the rights of others. He then didn't repudiate the views, after being given many chances to do so and encourage to do so by the staff at Mozilla. I don't think people unfairly ascribed a perspective to him. He is against marriage equality. He got called out for it, and driven out of town.
  - zimbatm 13y ago
    Yes but it's not rational and doesn't help the cause. Everyone has prejudices. If you can't talk about them without fearing some form of angry mob jumping at you then there is no way for people to understand each-other. I don't think there was any way out for him. And again, as external people who don't know anything about the person we can only have a simplistic view of him. And judging him on this is also a prejudice.

coolj 13y ago

> an opinion people shouldn't be held to account for... I believe people should be held publicly accountable for their actions, not their thoughts/opinions, no matter how strongly I may disagree with their ideas. I wouldn't be too worried about a CEO of Mozilla who had at some point contributed $1000 to a group trying to stop interracial- (or gay-, or plural-, or cats-and-dogs-) marriage by itself, if it were the person's own money. There are benign reasons a person may support such views, however misguided they may be, without being motivated by hate. So nothing in that contribution alone to makes me suspect the person would behave unfairly in the workplace towards the group of people supporting such marriage or trying to be married. To bring it back from the thought experiment to the current situation, I'm pretty sure a lot of people worked with Brendan at Mozilla, and I haven't heard of anyone coming forward with complaints of homophobia against him after working with/for him... so yeah.

MetaCosm 13y ago
Then we simply disagree, actively pursuing hateful legislation is something I am not compelled to overlook. This is something he did in public, on the record, with full knowledge. If someone actively pushed for racist laws, I would want them booted as well. So I guess we simply disagree on this issue.
- coolj 13y ago
  What if it was a donation to Americans United or Planned Parenthood? There are people who earnestly believe that AU hates religions and-or religious people, or that PP hates traditional family structure. What if he donated to a group that was against the Affordable Heathcare Act? What if he donated to a group that was for it? There are many reasons why people may support different causes or groups, and a contribution in and of itself doesn't do anything to show that it is motivated by hate or fear. You need to look at the person's other actions in order to better determine that.

tzs 13y ago

> Would you be fine if Eich had donated $1000 to an group trying to stop inter-racial marriage? If it were 1875, and if by "fine", you mean fine with the donor becoming a CEO rather than fine with them as a person, then I'd be fine with it. Change that to 2014 and I would not be fine with it. These judgements need to be made in context of the times. I find it hard to fault individuals for thinking like and acting in accord with the large majority of their contemporaries, even if I think the majority is not taking the right position.

MetaCosm 13y ago
The speed at which the "public" comes to a majority (and overwhelming trajectory) behind an issue is faster and faster due in part due to Eich's technology. 61% of young Republican leaning voters support marriage equality, the issue is over, just waiting out those who haven't yet realized this is no longer a debate, like Eich, to catch up.

zimbatm 13y ago

I don't really believe in marriage as an institution but think it's great as an expression of love. It's a way to say to your friends and family that you're in love and it's going to stay that way. In that sense I don't see why it should be a privilege to heterosexual white people. But I'm not going to judge someone based on a single thing. Who am I to say that Eich is homophobic based on a single variable ? I don't know that person. The only person qualified to say something are the ones working with him, all the rest is noise and disrespectful. It's tragic in some way. The LGBT movement is trying to raise awareness by fighting against prejudice. Because you're gay/lesbian/... people will expect you to behave in certain ways. And it hurts because you're denied of just being a human and yourself. And now Eich has been judged with prejudice. I don't this it's fair. People place him into the anti-gay camp and so by definition he becomes all the wrongs that this group represents and nothing rational comes out of this. Also who are we to take justice into our own hands ? This feels very wrong to me. Going back to the dark ages, just declare someone anti-gay and make him burn. I understand that it's not possible to be impartial on every subject but isn't it possible to elevate ourselves above that ?

MetaCosm 13y ago
He actively gave money to an issue with a single goal of limiting the rights of others. He then didn't repudiate the views, after being given many chances to do so and encourage to do so by the staff at Mozilla. I don't think people unfairly ascribed a perspective to him. He is against marriage equality. He got called out for it, and driven out of town.
- zimbatm 13y ago
  Yes but it's not rational and doesn't help the cause. Everyone has prejudices. If you can't talk about them without fearing some form of angry mob jumping at you then there is no way for people to understand each-other. I don't think there was any way out for him. And again, as external people who don't know anything about the person we can only have a simplistic view of him. And judging him on this is also a prejudice.