4 ms·

There is a lot more to this issue than that. The reactions outside and inside of the company showed very little tolerance, and between dialogue/engagement and

by muyuu 13y ago

There is a lot more to this issue than that. The reactions outside and inside of the company showed very little tolerance, and between dialogue/engagement and intimidation/suppression, the latter was chosen. This in itself is a massive problem. I read a lot of nonsense lately about this being "the free market", "he can defend whatever he wants but then face the consequences", etc. Do these people realise that the exact same arguments were used for the suppression of gays? how are these valid now? is this the kind of discourse people support in the Valley? But even worse than that is the argument that nothing illegal was done. Yep, the same as stripping Alan Turing of his awards was legal at the time, or put him under "treatment", or marginalising and ostracising him. Quit focusing in the legalese and look at the lack of compassion as human beings people have for those who dissent in a way that offends them.

rebelidealist 13y ago
I wish he had stuck thru the storm. I support gay marriage, but no one should be made to apologize for a belief that half of the country (including Obama) agreed with at the time. He was a consummate professional that did not slander anyone else based on their belief. Now we are slandering him thru a social media shit storm. OkCupid should be ashamed for themselves for their cheap move leveraging their large user base. Brandan Eich = "deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies" Really, he is your enemy? He make your site work with JS and Firefox. Without both, internet browsing will suck today. Please OkCupid, show him some respect and a benefit of doubt. Mozilla failed to back the cofounder that worked tirelessly for them for 16 years. They never emphasized after 16 years in an executive role, his personal vote did not have any effect on his ability to lead a diverse team. Hope his next company will appreciate his contributions more.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Eich's 2008 pro-Prop 8 view was not shared by Obama, who expressly spoke out in 2008 against both Prop 8 specifically, and attempts to write same-sex marriage bans into constitutions generally. Not sure why the “Eich was wronged” crowd raises this lie so often.
  - rebelidealist 13y ago
    Check out Obama's own word. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
- lomegor 13y ago
  > no one should be made to apologize for a belief that half of the country He wasn't made to apologize.
- MetaCosm 13y ago
  > no one should be made to apologize for a belief that half of the country... What? If the "belief" was the material support of a law to strip a class of people of rights -- yes, absolutely they should apologize... at the very least. > Now we are slandering him thru a social media shit storm. It is only slander if it is untrue, he never repudiated his views. People basically called him someone who is against marriage equality ... because, well, he is someone who is against marriage equality. > Mozilla failed to back the cofounder that worked tirelessly for them for 16 years. What really kicked off this thing was lack of internal support, when you have GROUPS of your own employees publicly calling for your resignation, you are in deep shit as a CEO. > his personal vote did not have any effect on his ability to lead a diverse team By "personal vote" you mean, material support for a law to strip a group of people of a right? Just double-checking. Additionally, it DID have a massive effect on his ability to lead the Mozilla staff, bunches of them on twitter asked him to step down. > Hope his next company will appreciate his contributions more. We will see, I suspect no company will hire him as a CEO. Being homophobic is just not hip these days. I really think he doesn't belong at the helm of a company -- probably make a great CTO somewhere, or just retire and relax.
  - rebelidealist 13y ago
    Do you call everyone that don't share your view of gay marriage an "enemy"? I bet you have friends that don't share this view. There are decent people who have old school views. They are just slow to adjust due to upbringing or religion.
    - hakunin 13y ago
      If it wasn't for movements like these, there would be nothing to adjust to.
MetaCosm 13y ago
> The reactions outside and inside of the company showed very little tolerance ... The key to your nonsense idea that wanting to striping an entire class of people of a right (and materially supporting the effort) is simply a "dissenting opinion that offends them". It isn't offensive, that trivializes it. It is a legal attack on class of people. If he had donated $1000 to a group to reintroduce segregation in public schools, I highly doubt you would defend him under the idea "he just has a dissenting opinion that races shouldn't mix and materially supported the effort" -- or would you?
- devindotcom 13y ago
  I'm really glad there's such a good historical parallel - miscegenation and segregation (even 'separate but equal') are a great way of putting this whole thing in context. I've seen a lot of hedging once that theme is introduced over the last few weeks.
- muyuu 13y ago
  I choose dialogue over intimidation and fear, no matter what. Esp. when this prop passed with 52% of the vote.
  - devindotcom 13y ago
    Were demonstrators in the 60s using intimidation and fear? Should they have had a dialogue with the people who considered them inferior humans, and did not permit them to sit on the same stools white people did? Demonstration does not need to be polite, especially when the other side has been anything but. Speaking out en masse is a perfectly ordinary and effective form of protest.
  - MetaCosm 13y ago
    What nonsense. You want a dialogue with every racist, sexist and homophobic jerk in the country, you are welcome to it -- and good luck. Western society by and large has decided that certain issues are no longer up for "dialogue". Racism is wrong. Sexism is wrong. 61% of young republican (18-29) leaning voters support marriage equality -- which means this issue is actually settled, just waiting a few generations for old homophobic people to shuffle off this mortal coil. Until you get on here and vigorously defend holocaust deniers, racists and sexists who materially support such perspectives, I am prone to believe you have another agenda here.
lomegor 13y ago
> between dialogue/engagement and intimidation/suppression, the latter was chosen. I've seen much more dialogue and engagement than intimidation and suppression. Most things I've seen on this topic were people complaining and writing, not forcing Mozilla to do anything. The only one that got close to "intimidation" is the OKCupid thing, which is still debatable. > Do these people realise that the exact same arguments were used for the suppression of gays? how are these valid now? Are you seriously comparing the oppression of gay people with the "oppression" of people who have homophobic views? I don't think this should be explained to you, but it's totally OK to discriminate people because of what they think or the opinions they have; is not OK to discriminate people by what they are. For example, any company should be free to fire White Supremacists, but not to fire white people just for being white. Are you seriously saying that people shouldn't dissociate themselves from people whose opinions they find offensive? And you are complaining about political correctness? > But even worse than that is the argument that nothing illegal was done. Yep, the same as stripping Alan Turing of his awards was legal at the time, or put him under "treatment", or marginalising and ostracising him. Again with this comparison! You seriously need to stop comparing the discrimination of gay people with the discrimination of homophobic people. Next thing you know, you are probably going to argue that LGBT organizations need to accept homophobic managers and volunteers. > look at the lack of compassion as human beings people have for those who dissent in a way that offends them. I'm not even sure what you are saying here. I haven't noticed a lack of compassion. in your whole comment, there is no single argument to explain your position, and the only thing you did was create arguments from thin air and disproving them. I don't even know who you are talking about... everyone who supported the firing of Eich?

by muyuu 13y ago

rebelidealist 13y ago

I wish he had stuck thru the storm. I support gay marriage, but no one should be made to apologize for a belief that half of the country (including Obama) agreed with at the time. He was a consummate professional that did not slander anyone else based on their belief. Now we are slandering him thru a social media shit storm. OkCupid should be ashamed for themselves for their cheap move leveraging their large user base. Brandan Eich = "deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies" Really, he is your enemy? He make your site work with JS and Firefox. Without both, internet browsing will suck today. Please OkCupid, show him some respect and a benefit of doubt. Mozilla failed to back the cofounder that worked tirelessly for them for 16 years. They never emphasized after 16 years in an executive role, his personal vote did not have any effect on his ability to lead a diverse team. Hope his next company will appreciate his contributions more.

dragonwriter 13y ago
Eich's 2008 pro-Prop 8 view was not shared by Obama, who expressly spoke out in 2008 against both Prop 8 specifically, and attempts to write same-sex marriage bans into constitutions generally. Not sure why the “Eich was wronged” crowd raises this lie so often.
- rebelidealist 13y ago
  Check out Obama's own word. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
lomegor 13y ago
> no one should be made to apologize for a belief that half of the country He wasn't made to apologize.
MetaCosm 13y ago
> no one should be made to apologize for a belief that half of the country... What? If the "belief" was the material support of a law to strip a class of people of rights -- yes, absolutely they should apologize... at the very least. > Now we are slandering him thru a social media shit storm. It is only slander if it is untrue, he never repudiated his views. People basically called him someone who is against marriage equality ... because, well, he is someone who is against marriage equality. > Mozilla failed to back the cofounder that worked tirelessly for them for 16 years. What really kicked off this thing was lack of internal support, when you have GROUPS of your own employees publicly calling for your resignation, you are in deep shit as a CEO. > his personal vote did not have any effect on his ability to lead a diverse team By "personal vote" you mean, material support for a law to strip a group of people of a right? Just double-checking. Additionally, it DID have a massive effect on his ability to lead the Mozilla staff, bunches of them on twitter asked him to step down. > Hope his next company will appreciate his contributions more. We will see, I suspect no company will hire him as a CEO. Being homophobic is just not hip these days. I really think he doesn't belong at the helm of a company -- probably make a great CTO somewhere, or just retire and relax.
- rebelidealist 13y ago
  Do you call everyone that don't share your view of gay marriage an "enemy"? I bet you have friends that don't share this view. There are decent people who have old school views. They are just slow to adjust due to upbringing or religion.
  - hakunin 13y ago
    If it wasn't for movements like these, there would be nothing to adjust to.

MetaCosm 13y ago

> The reactions outside and inside of the company showed very little tolerance ... The key to your nonsense idea that wanting to striping an entire class of people of a right (and materially supporting the effort) is simply a "dissenting opinion that offends them". It isn't offensive, that trivializes it. It is a legal attack on class of people. If he had donated $1000 to a group to reintroduce segregation in public schools, I highly doubt you would defend him under the idea "he just has a dissenting opinion that races shouldn't mix and materially supported the effort" -- or would you?

devindotcom 13y ago
I'm really glad there's such a good historical parallel - miscegenation and segregation (even 'separate but equal') are a great way of putting this whole thing in context. I've seen a lot of hedging once that theme is introduced over the last few weeks.
muyuu 13y ago
I choose dialogue over intimidation and fear, no matter what. Esp. when this prop passed with 52% of the vote.
- devindotcom 13y ago
  Were demonstrators in the 60s using intimidation and fear? Should they have had a dialogue with the people who considered them inferior humans, and did not permit them to sit on the same stools white people did? Demonstration does not need to be polite, especially when the other side has been anything but. Speaking out en masse is a perfectly ordinary and effective form of protest.
- MetaCosm 13y ago
  What nonsense. You want a dialogue with every racist, sexist and homophobic jerk in the country, you are welcome to it -- and good luck. Western society by and large has decided that certain issues are no longer up for "dialogue". Racism is wrong. Sexism is wrong. 61% of young republican (18-29) leaning voters support marriage equality -- which means this issue is actually settled, just waiting a few generations for old homophobic people to shuffle off this mortal coil. Until you get on here and vigorously defend holocaust deniers, racists and sexists who materially support such perspectives, I am prone to believe you have another agenda here.

lomegor 13y ago

> between dialogue/engagement and intimidation/suppression, the latter was chosen. I've seen much more dialogue and engagement than intimidation and suppression. Most things I've seen on this topic were people complaining and writing, not forcing Mozilla to do anything. The only one that got close to "intimidation" is the OKCupid thing, which is still debatable. > Do these people realise that the exact same arguments were used for the suppression of gays? how are these valid now? Are you seriously comparing the oppression of gay people with the "oppression" of people who have homophobic views? I don't think this should be explained to you, but it's totally OK to discriminate people because of what they think or the opinions they have; is not OK to discriminate people by what they are. For example, any company should be free to fire White Supremacists, but not to fire white people just for being white. Are you seriously saying that people shouldn't dissociate themselves from people whose opinions they find offensive? And you are complaining about political correctness? > But even worse than that is the argument that nothing illegal was done. Yep, the same as stripping Alan Turing of his awards was legal at the time, or put him under "treatment", or marginalising and ostracising him. Again with this comparison! You seriously need to stop comparing the discrimination of gay people with the discrimination of homophobic people. Next thing you know, you are probably going to argue that LGBT organizations need to accept homophobic managers and volunteers. > look at the lack of compassion as human beings people have for those who dissent in a way that offends them. I'm not even sure what you are saying here. I haven't noticed a lack of compassion. in your whole comment, there is no single argument to explain your position, and the only thing you did was create arguments from thin air and disproving them. I don't even know who you are talking about... everyone who supported the firing of Eich?