14 ms·

What is regrettable in all this is that no one seems to consider the possibility that people may have nuanced views about gay marriage. According to the mob you

by pyduan 13y ago

What is regrettable in all this is that no one seems to consider the possibility that people may have nuanced views about gay marriage. According to the mob you're either a saint or a bigot, and thus Eich's value as a human being was supposedly entirely determined by this one opinion he voiced in 2008. I'm staunchly in favor of gay marriage, which I consider to be a no-brainer -- but it seems to me the motivations of Prop 8 proponents differ a lot in nature, with some being much more excusable than others in their wrongness. For example, there are people who have nothing against homosexuality but are attached to the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution and would be completely fine with another civil contract with the same rights but a different name. This seems to be somewhat in line with Eich's actions (I remember reading a memo from Eich stating he had no plan to amend Mozilla's gay-friendly policies and employee benefits). Although I still think this view is guilty of being wrongly attached to outdated models of society, this is not nearly as bad as what Eich has been accused of. There are other possible reasons one could have (for example, those who in ignorance of the many studies that showed that children of homosexual households grow up just fine could have unfounded reservations about gay adoption, but would be ready to change their mind if shown the evidence; I've encountered a couple myself), but my broader point is that there is a huge range in the degree of bigotry between those who voted Prop 8 and one should not jump to conclusions so easily as they do not all deserve the same level of condemnation. Now, I can understand why Eich's views could make him unsuitable as a CEO because, in a purely pragmatic sense, holding views that most of your workforce despise is obviously detrimental to your ability to lead and especially so at such a peculiar organization as Mozilla where ideology matters arguably more than in other companies; it also matters because, as many have said, a CEO is the face of the company and his views and those of the company are sometimes hard to disentangle. But going from there to making a call to boycott Firefox is a huge jump and smells like a pure appropriation of the controversy for PR purposes. This revelation about Sam Yagan seems to strengthen this feeling. Come on people, we're better than this. Being on the right side of history about an issue does not automatically waive us from intellectual rigor and moderation.

tiquorsj 13y ago
You will rue the day that a person's ability to lead is judged by how well ago their views align with those they lead. Especially on matters only on the fringe of the primary goal of the workplace and especially in instances whee the workplace actions are aligned. Shared vision is different than group think and mob rule.
scarmig 13y ago
Minor point: you speak of Prop 8 opponents, but you're talking about Prop 8 proponents. Remember they were explicitly trying to roll back rights permanently, in the California Constitution, not trying to stop a new law from passing. Anyhow, something to consider: there were onced nuanced segregationists--there's a funny clip where Jimmy Carter's ex chief of staff said he went from being an extreme segregationist, to a moderate segregationist, to a moderate integrationist. That viewpoint seems insane now, because with the benefit of hindsight we can't conceive of how an extreme viewpoint can be viewed as moderate if you're living within it. But thems the breaks. If someone's a bigot, they're a bigot, no matter how complicated an ideological edifice they've erected to prove they're not a bigot.
couchand 13y ago
I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I take issue with judging Mr Eich unsuitable. I think as outsiders we are simply unable to reasonably evaluate his fitness as CEO of their organization. Employees and their managers have differences of thought all the time, but that doesn't preclude a mutual respect for each other's work. From what I understand the employees of Mozilla for the most part had glowing reviews of his work, and ultimately that (and I guess the general performance of the company) should be the true judge of his suitability to the job. It is despicable to wish to deny equal treatment under the law to any group. But even if in a person's private life they harbor such wishes, it is not the place of the general public to judge the company they work for.
masklinn 13y ago
> For example, there are people who have nothing against homosexuality but are attached to the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution Yes, they were also attached to its symbolic value when they used it to condemn miscegenation. Given atheist, muslims, jews or hindus can get married, and so can blacks, browns, reds, yellows and whites (with one another too, which once upon a time was against "the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution"), I'm pretty sure civil marriage has nothing to do with "the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution". > and would be completely fine with another civil contract with the same rights but a different name. Because "separate but equal" had such a good run last time around eh? > This seems to be somewhat in line with Eich's actions No it is not: 1. Eich donated $1000 to prop 8. Prop 8's goal was to prevent future homosexual marriages in california and to break up existing ones (since prop 8 was passed specifically because proposition 22 had been struck down and homosexual couples were getting married). It did not propose the introduction of an equivalent contract or amend californian law to effectively introduce one 2. Eich refused to acknowledge such an intent and stonewalled instead behind "me giving to people trying to destroy your marriage does not mean I'm a bigot". Does not sound like "separate but equal" was his intent, as distateful as that would have been 3. "I would prefer an alternative to it therefore I donate to amend the constitution in order to ban it" is not what I would call sane and sensible reasoning
- baddox 13y ago
  It has nothing to do both "separate but equal" if the only difference is the legal term used ("marriage" for heterosexual couple, "civil union" for homosexual couple) and not the rights associated with it. Separate but equal was about physical segregation of minorities, not just about using different legal terms for the same thing. And, by the way, something that a ton of people don't know about the separate but equal doctrine (because it doesn't appear to be taught in American public schools): It actually refers to the government's legal authority to mandate that privately owned businesses provide separate nut equal facilities for blacks. That's a lot different than the usual portrayal of Brown vs. BoE, as the government stepping in an conquering private racism.
  - Sniffnoy 13y ago
bambax 13y ago
This is really not the point at all; we're way way past the debate pro- or against- gay marriage. (Disclaimer: like probably 99% of people on HN, I'm strongly in favor of gay marriage). The point(s) are: - is it acceptable to hunt a man down and force him to step down from a job he's highly qualified for, because he has held in the past political opinions that not only differ from your own, but were then mainstream and are now considered "incorrect"? - is it acceptable for a corporation such as OkCupid to ruin a man's (otherwise impeccable) professional life for a little PR stunt? - how can the CEO of OkCupid justify this little stunt when he himself made a donation to a politician who's an actual, self-professed, public bigot??
- krainboltgreene 13y ago
  Jesus, "hunt a man down" and "ruin a man's (otherwise impeccable) professional life"? You have a really low bar for using these phrases and it makes your argument that much more ridiculous (and false). None of these things happened and you miss half the context in which similar but less hyperbolic things happened.
  - sigzero 13y ago
    No they pretty much did that.
  - anonbanker 13y ago
    Brendan Eich's professional life was impeccable. he had a stellar resume, and was CTO of a successful company. he could've gone anywhere from there. Now, he's thought of in SV as a bigot, despite all his efforts to reverse that opinion. His impeccable professional reputation is ruined. I see no lowering of the bar when staing this fact. Perhaps you could explain why saying he was ruined professionally is false? After looking through your comment history, you seem to be posting the same downplaying arguments throughout the thread. And when you're disagreed with, the replies to you are downvoted. very interesting. perhaps you could explain that as well?
    - Natsu 13y ago
Aqueous 13y ago
So many on the left (including myself) revere the style of politics of Nelson Mandela and yet when it comes time to actually behave like Mandela would in a given situation they completely fail, and conduct the same style of embittered, vengeful politics when they are asked to treat the other side with an attitude of forgiveness and reconciliation. Do you think Mandela systematically purged all those whites who once supported apartheid from their positions? He did not. Why? Because forgiveness was more beneficial to the nation than recrimination. Now that gay marriage is clearly on the march supporters, who are winning, need to treat their opposition the same way. With magnanimity and not vengefulness. Eich is wrong about gay marriage, but he didn't deserve to be fired.
- scarmig 13y ago
  For forgiveness you need Truth and Reconciliation. There's a reason that committee was set up. "Forgiving and being reconciled to our enemies or our loved ones are not about pretending that things are other than they are. It is not about patting one another on the back and turning a blind eye to the wrong. True reconciliation exposes the awfulness, the abuse, the hurt, the truth. It could even sometimes make things worse. It is a risky undertaking but in the end it is worthwhile, because in the end only an honest confrontation with reality can bring real healing. Superficial reconciliation can bring only superficial healing." That's Desmond Tutu, another important figure in the struggle against apartheid. Do you think Eich has owned up to the hurt and abuse he committed? He's not even apologized. You can't have forgiveness if the person you want to forgive isn't even willing to apologize.
  - Aqueous 13y ago
    Truth and Reconciliation was about truth, and not punishment. It did not demand that former supporters renounce their heresy or be punished, just that a historical accounting was made, the facts were laid down. Brendan Eich said the following in a blog post(https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/) after making a statement that he fully intended to continue the LGBT-inclusive policies at Mozilla: "I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain."
fredgrott 13y ago
Problem is a Marriage license is not defined by a religion in power as a government. Marriage license should be religion netrual when you get down to it..all should be allowed to marry as many people at once as they want irregardless of creed, sexual orientation, gender, etc.
yypark 13y ago
The reaction to Eich is best seen through a lens of human group power dynamics, as it isn't logically consistent with some supposed ideals (civil discourse, etc.). Geeks have a harder time understanding this social acceptability aspect, especially within a given group or tribe. For this particular political question, a "no gay marriage" opinion has passed into the socially unacceptable in the Bay Area tech crowd. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to react or ostracize like this, it's just the way crowds of people tend to work. And when tides shift in one direction, a desire by the winning side to celebrate, express power, and pick on the losing happens. In 2008 it may have been a serious political question in California and the United States as a whole - and we totally can judge based on popular opinion - the difference is supporters narrow the judgment of social acceptability to Eich's narrower group of Bay Area techies. That's why saying it's "obviously wrong" or "there are no rational arguments" is a cop out - and the same denying civil rights argument can be applied to say abortion (denying women's right to choose! Murdering unborn infants!) or opposing affirmative action (racist against minorities! discrimination!). The main difference? Public opinion rapidly moved against Prop 8 whereas for gun control or abortion it has been far more steady. [Even though over 20% of San Franciscans voted for Prop 8, the number among the educated tech crowd was likely far lower, and same among California as a whole]. Meanwhile, a movement like neo-Nazism is more universally reviled and not socially acceptable in 2014 US, although it may have been mainstream in 1938 Germany, and speaking out against it would leave you ostracized. This is where the "right side of history" aspect becomes interesting. Everything happens within the context of your time and your tribe, and this morality breaks down after these context changes. Because the opinion on gay marriage is so universal within the tech crowd of the Bay Area, Eich doesn't really have a way out in this. (Look at the contribution numbers for employees of Google, Facebook, etc.) Meanwhile minority opinions on gun control, abortion, etc. are still socially acceptable but will still trigger suspicion. Ditto on economic issues and the entire anti-libertarian techie backlash, even though libertarianism continues to be weaker than liberalism. For another industry and group, look at Whole Foods' CEO writing an anti-Obamacare Op ed which triggered a backlash - the difference is that Eich said nothin, and most definitely continued to adopt gay-friendly policies at his workplace. In medieval Europe, the adherence to your group (or broader society) was enforced through excommunication, in communist Russia, through purging and re-education camps, in Hollywood during the Red Scare, via McCarthyism and impossibility of finding a job. In Silicon Valley, is it by Internet campaigns and removal from high-ranking positions? What supposed Eich defenders are saying is - let's try not to be like that, no matter how righteous we believe our opinions to be.
stcredzero 13y ago
What is regrettable in all this is that no one seems to consider the possibility that people may have nuanced views about gay marriage. The norm portrayed on television and in so much of the media is that nuanced views are just a cover for being a "bad guy." In a story, black and white morality is so much more palatable for the least common denominator audience. News media now also follows this pattern, as do political commercials. However, reality is actually pretty complicated, and informed opinions are often nuanced by necessity. There are other possible reasons one could have (for example, those who in ignorance of the many studies that showed that children of homosexual households grow up just fine could have unfounded reservations about gay adoption, but would be ready to change their mind if shown the evidence A college housemate of mine was dead-set homophobic when she first moved in. However, she eventually became the best friends of a gay man who lived with us. Understanding in a pluralistic society comes from the everyday interaction of normal, decent people. This is how prejudices are debunked and the wounds of societal injustice are healed. The actions of OkCupid are vindictive and only unproductive in this regard.
- anonbanker 13y ago
  I thought HN as a whole was smart enough to not fall for these black and white moral plays. Either they are that gullible overall, or there's some serious astroturfing going on here.

by pyduan 13y ago

tiquorsj 13y ago

You will rue the day that a person's ability to lead is judged by how well ago their views align with those they lead. Especially on matters only on the fringe of the primary goal of the workplace and especially in instances whee the workplace actions are aligned. Shared vision is different than group think and mob rule.

scarmig 13y ago

Minor point: you speak of Prop 8 opponents, but you're talking about Prop 8 proponents. Remember they were explicitly trying to roll back rights permanently, in the California Constitution, not trying to stop a new law from passing. Anyhow, something to consider: there were onced nuanced segregationists--there's a funny clip where Jimmy Carter's ex chief of staff said he went from being an extreme segregationist, to a moderate segregationist, to a moderate integrationist. That viewpoint seems insane now, because with the benefit of hindsight we can't conceive of how an extreme viewpoint can be viewed as moderate if you're living within it. But thems the breaks. If someone's a bigot, they're a bigot, no matter how complicated an ideological edifice they've erected to prove they're not a bigot.

couchand 13y ago

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I take issue with judging Mr Eich unsuitable. I think as outsiders we are simply unable to reasonably evaluate his fitness as CEO of their organization. Employees and their managers have differences of thought all the time, but that doesn't preclude a mutual respect for each other's work. From what I understand the employees of Mozilla for the most part had glowing reviews of his work, and ultimately that (and I guess the general performance of the company) should be the true judge of his suitability to the job. It is despicable to wish to deny equal treatment under the law to any group. But even if in a person's private life they harbor such wishes, it is not the place of the general public to judge the company they work for.

masklinn 13y ago

> For example, there are people who have nothing against homosexuality but are attached to the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution Yes, they were also attached to its symbolic value when they used it to condemn miscegenation. Given atheist, muslims, jews or hindus can get married, and so can blacks, browns, reds, yellows and whites (with one another too, which once upon a time was against "the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution"), I'm pretty sure civil marriage has nothing to do with "the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution". > and would be completely fine with another civil contract with the same rights but a different name. Because "separate but equal" had such a good run last time around eh? > This seems to be somewhat in line with Eich's actions No it is not: 1. Eich donated $1000 to prop 8. Prop 8's goal was to prevent future homosexual marriages in california and to break up existing ones (since prop 8 was passed specifically because proposition 22 had been struck down and homosexual couples were getting married). It did not propose the introduction of an equivalent contract or amend californian law to effectively introduce one 2. Eich refused to acknowledge such an intent and stonewalled instead behind "me giving to people trying to destroy your marriage does not mean I'm a bigot". Does not sound like "separate but equal" was his intent, as distateful as that would have been 3. "I would prefer an alternative to it therefore I donate to amend the constitution in order to ban it" is not what I would call sane and sensible reasoning

baddox 13y ago
It has nothing to do both "separate but equal" if the only difference is the legal term used ("marriage" for heterosexual couple, "civil union" for homosexual couple) and not the rights associated with it. Separate but equal was about physical segregation of minorities, not just about using different legal terms for the same thing. And, by the way, something that a ton of people don't know about the separate but equal doctrine (because it doesn't appear to be taught in American public schools): It actually refers to the government's legal authority to mandate that privately owned businesses provide separate nut equal facilities for blacks. That's a lot different than the usual portrayal of Brown vs. BoE, as the government stepping in an conquering private racism.
- Sniffnoy 13y ago

bambax 13y ago

This is really not the point at all; we're way way past the debate pro- or against- gay marriage. (Disclaimer: like probably 99% of people on HN, I'm strongly in favor of gay marriage). The point(s) are: - is it acceptable to hunt a man down and force him to step down from a job he's highly qualified for, because he has held in the past political opinions that not only differ from your own, but were then mainstream and are now considered "incorrect"? - is it acceptable for a corporation such as OkCupid to ruin a man's (otherwise impeccable) professional life for a little PR stunt? - how can the CEO of OkCupid justify this little stunt when he himself made a donation to a politician who's an actual, self-professed, public bigot??

krainboltgreene 13y ago
Jesus, "hunt a man down" and "ruin a man's (otherwise impeccable) professional life"? You have a really low bar for using these phrases and it makes your argument that much more ridiculous (and false). None of these things happened and you miss half the context in which similar but less hyperbolic things happened.
- sigzero 13y ago
  No they pretty much did that.
- anonbanker 13y ago
  Brendan Eich's professional life was impeccable. he had a stellar resume, and was CTO of a successful company. he could've gone anywhere from there. Now, he's thought of in SV as a bigot, despite all his efforts to reverse that opinion. His impeccable professional reputation is ruined. I see no lowering of the bar when staing this fact. Perhaps you could explain why saying he was ruined professionally is false? After looking through your comment history, you seem to be posting the same downplaying arguments throughout the thread. And when you're disagreed with, the replies to you are downvoted. very interesting. perhaps you could explain that as well?
  - Natsu 13y ago

Aqueous 13y ago

So many on the left (including myself) revere the style of politics of Nelson Mandela and yet when it comes time to actually behave like Mandela would in a given situation they completely fail, and conduct the same style of embittered, vengeful politics when they are asked to treat the other side with an attitude of forgiveness and reconciliation. Do you think Mandela systematically purged all those whites who once supported apartheid from their positions? He did not. Why? Because forgiveness was more beneficial to the nation than recrimination. Now that gay marriage is clearly on the march supporters, who are winning, need to treat their opposition the same way. With magnanimity and not vengefulness. Eich is wrong about gay marriage, but he didn't deserve to be fired.

scarmig 13y ago
For forgiveness you need Truth and Reconciliation. There's a reason that committee was set up. "Forgiving and being reconciled to our enemies or our loved ones are not about pretending that things are other than they are. It is not about patting one another on the back and turning a blind eye to the wrong. True reconciliation exposes the awfulness, the abuse, the hurt, the truth. It could even sometimes make things worse. It is a risky undertaking but in the end it is worthwhile, because in the end only an honest confrontation with reality can bring real healing. Superficial reconciliation can bring only superficial healing." That's Desmond Tutu, another important figure in the struggle against apartheid. Do you think Eich has owned up to the hurt and abuse he committed? He's not even apologized. You can't have forgiveness if the person you want to forgive isn't even willing to apologize.
- Aqueous 13y ago
  Truth and Reconciliation was about truth, and not punishment. It did not demand that former supporters renounce their heresy or be punished, just that a historical accounting was made, the facts were laid down. Brendan Eich said the following in a blog post(https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/) after making a statement that he fully intended to continue the LGBT-inclusive policies at Mozilla: "I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain."

fredgrott 13y ago

Problem is a Marriage license is not defined by a religion in power as a government. Marriage license should be religion netrual when you get down to it..all should be allowed to marry as many people at once as they want irregardless of creed, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

yypark 13y ago

The reaction to Eich is best seen through a lens of human group power dynamics, as it isn't logically consistent with some supposed ideals (civil discourse, etc.). Geeks have a harder time understanding this social acceptability aspect, especially within a given group or tribe. For this particular political question, a "no gay marriage" opinion has passed into the socially unacceptable in the Bay Area tech crowd. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to react or ostracize like this, it's just the way crowds of people tend to work. And when tides shift in one direction, a desire by the winning side to celebrate, express power, and pick on the losing happens. In 2008 it may have been a serious political question in California and the United States as a whole - and we totally can judge based on popular opinion - the difference is supporters narrow the judgment of social acceptability to Eich's narrower group of Bay Area techies. That's why saying it's "obviously wrong" or "there are no rational arguments" is a cop out - and the same denying civil rights argument can be applied to say abortion (denying women's right to choose! Murdering unborn infants!) or opposing affirmative action (racist against minorities! discrimination!). The main difference? Public opinion rapidly moved against Prop 8 whereas for gun control or abortion it has been far more steady. [Even though over 20% of San Franciscans voted for Prop 8, the number among the educated tech crowd was likely far lower, and same among California as a whole]. Meanwhile, a movement like neo-Nazism is more universally reviled and not socially acceptable in 2014 US, although it may have been mainstream in 1938 Germany, and speaking out against it would leave you ostracized. This is where the "right side of history" aspect becomes interesting. Everything happens within the context of your time and your tribe, and this morality breaks down after these context changes. Because the opinion on gay marriage is so universal within the tech crowd of the Bay Area, Eich doesn't really have a way out in this. (Look at the contribution numbers for employees of Google, Facebook, etc.) Meanwhile minority opinions on gun control, abortion, etc. are still socially acceptable but will still trigger suspicion. Ditto on economic issues and the entire anti-libertarian techie backlash, even though libertarianism continues to be weaker than liberalism. For another industry and group, look at Whole Foods' CEO writing an anti-Obamacare Op ed which triggered a backlash - the difference is that Eich said nothin, and most definitely continued to adopt gay-friendly policies at his workplace. In medieval Europe, the adherence to your group (or broader society) was enforced through excommunication, in communist Russia, through purging and re-education camps, in Hollywood during the Red Scare, via McCarthyism and impossibility of finding a job. In Silicon Valley, is it by Internet campaigns and removal from high-ranking positions? What supposed Eich defenders are saying is - let's try not to be like that, no matter how righteous we believe our opinions to be.

stcredzero 13y ago

What is regrettable in all this is that no one seems to consider the possibility that people may have nuanced views about gay marriage. The norm portrayed on television and in so much of the media is that nuanced views are just a cover for being a "bad guy." In a story, black and white morality is so much more palatable for the least common denominator audience. News media now also follows this pattern, as do political commercials. However, reality is actually pretty complicated, and informed opinions are often nuanced by necessity. There are other possible reasons one could have (for example, those who in ignorance of the many studies that showed that children of homosexual households grow up just fine could have unfounded reservations about gay adoption, but would be ready to change their mind if shown the evidence A college housemate of mine was dead-set homophobic when she first moved in. However, she eventually became the best friends of a gay man who lived with us. Understanding in a pluralistic society comes from the everyday interaction of normal, decent people. This is how prejudices are debunked and the wounds of societal injustice are healed. The actions of OkCupid are vindictive and only unproductive in this regard.

anonbanker 13y ago
I thought HN as a whole was smart enough to not fall for these black and white moral plays. Either they are that gullible overall, or there's some serious astroturfing going on here.