9 ms·

The job of one man doesn't even begin to compare to the civil rights of so many. While this is true, I think comparing a political donation to a witch hunt and

by philbo 13y ago

The job of one man doesn't even begin to compare to the civil rights of so many. While this is true, I think comparing a political donation to a witch hunt and a lynch mob is a stretch. It's not really clear to me how the rights of lesbian and gay people have been improved by Brendan's decision to resign. Whereas Mozilla has lost it's founder, new CEO and long-term CTO and, if recent activity on es-discuss is a reliable gauge, the ECMAScript committee has lost its benevolent dictator and the man who invented the language. Are you positive that the world is better without Brendan occupying those positions?

rimantas 13y ago
Ok, would you reply with the same were Brendon to donate to KKK or some anti-interracial-marriage organization?
- philbo 13y ago
  No, clearly. The KKK was literally a lynch mob. They murdered and tortured and terrorised people and communities.
- chr1 13y ago
  You know that KKK were killing people right? and anti-interracial-marriage were not allowing people to live together. Do you think that can be compared to prop8 which only wanted to remove tax cuts and social status?
  - lern_too_spel 13y ago
    No, what Brendan helped pass was worse than anti-miscegenation laws. With the latter, you might not be able to marry your first preference, but there are plenty of fish in the sea. If you're gay, in post-Proposition 8 California, you could not marry anybody you were attracted to.
    - chr1 13y ago
      Do you really think not being able to live with someone you love is better than not getting the tax cut?
      - lern_too_spel 13y ago
        Where did I say that? I said that not being able to marry anybody at all you were attracted to is worse that not being able to live with one particular person that you might fall in love with. Also, marriage has more legal implications than taxation.
- exodust 13y ago
  As explained many times in many forums, but obviously falling on deaf ears, drawing parallels with the KKK is absurd. It's an unreasonable distortion of the debate, designed to emotionally repel all who disagrees with your views on defining marriage, and wrongly mixing up civil rights with human rights. The KKK encroached on people's HUMAN rights, obviously. And while you insist that marriage is a matter of civil rights, it's easily arguable that marriage is not a civil right for gays or straight people. The legal "benefits" allowed within established relationships on the other hand, can be argued as civil rights. This means you should be campaigning for equal rights for civil unions rather than trying to get everyone to re-define what they believe to be "marriage", which doesn't seem to be working. You like to think that everyone is on the same page as you, but many people holding back expressing their opinion on this matter simply don't want to be accused by people like you of gay-hatred, bigotry and all the other pathetic labels you have for those who don't agree with you about what "marriage" is, its limits and scope, and how much of it is inherently about male + female union.
  - bsder 13y ago
    Why is it the job of the gay folks to redefine civil unions to protect "traditional marriage"? Had the folks who wanted to protect "traditional marriage" proposed removing marriage from the legal framework and replacing it with "civil union" do you have any idea the groundswell of support they would have had? So, why didn't they? Why was there no campaign to remove "traditional marriage" from the legal framework? Why, instead, did a whole bunch of religious folks sponsor Prop 8 instead of a far superior and equal solution of removing the state altogether from "traditional marriage"? Simple, Proposition 8 wasn't about marriage. It was about attacking "the gays". And people in the tech industry are smart enough to see it for what it was--a well-funded effort to inject religion-based bigotry into California law. And Eich is paying the price for that.
    - exodust 13y ago
      If I knew more about Prop 8 details, I'd comment on prop 8. I prefer the social and philosophical ideas around the wider debate, and the online activism overreaction, the tweeting Mozilla staff (who should just resign themselves IMHO). If you're right that Prop 8 was about attacking gay people, then that sucks. This is where I'd like to hear from Eich on the matter. I've automatically assumed his innocence on the matter of gay-hatred, especially after reading his March 26 blog post. Same-sex couples can still get married anyway, have a wedding without fear of the riot squad shutting the party down. Mickey Rooney married eight times. That's a lot of wedding parties. Definitely have the parties, the honeymoons. That stuff is the important stuff, then go after de-facto/unmarried/same-sex rights of couples. Certificates for emergencies and so on, come on there's not actually that many rights. Some can be sorted out with co-habitation agreements and other arrangements. What a sad thing for the Mozilla CEO that his own staff tweet against him just a day after his March 26 blog post promoting equality and stating he was open to advice from the LGBT community... https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

by philbo 13y ago

rimantas 13y ago

Ok, would you reply with the same were Brendon to donate to KKK or some anti-interracial-marriage organization?

philbo 13y ago
No, clearly. The KKK was literally a lynch mob. They murdered and tortured and terrorised people and communities.
chr1 13y ago
You know that KKK were killing people right? and anti-interracial-marriage were not allowing people to live together. Do you think that can be compared to prop8 which only wanted to remove tax cuts and social status?
- lern_too_spel 13y ago
  No, what Brendan helped pass was worse than anti-miscegenation laws. With the latter, you might not be able to marry your first preference, but there are plenty of fish in the sea. If you're gay, in post-Proposition 8 California, you could not marry anybody you were attracted to.
  - chr1 13y ago
    Do you really think not being able to live with someone you love is better than not getting the tax cut?
    - lern_too_spel 13y ago
      Where did I say that? I said that not being able to marry anybody at all you were attracted to is worse that not being able to live with one particular person that you might fall in love with. Also, marriage has more legal implications than taxation.
exodust 13y ago
As explained many times in many forums, but obviously falling on deaf ears, drawing parallels with the KKK is absurd. It's an unreasonable distortion of the debate, designed to emotionally repel all who disagrees with your views on defining marriage, and wrongly mixing up civil rights with human rights. The KKK encroached on people's HUMAN rights, obviously. And while you insist that marriage is a matter of civil rights, it's easily arguable that marriage is not a civil right for gays or straight people. The legal "benefits" allowed within established relationships on the other hand, can be argued as civil rights. This means you should be campaigning for equal rights for civil unions rather than trying to get everyone to re-define what they believe to be "marriage", which doesn't seem to be working. You like to think that everyone is on the same page as you, but many people holding back expressing their opinion on this matter simply don't want to be accused by people like you of gay-hatred, bigotry and all the other pathetic labels you have for those who don't agree with you about what "marriage" is, its limits and scope, and how much of it is inherently about male + female union.
- bsder 13y ago
  Why is it the job of the gay folks to redefine civil unions to protect "traditional marriage"? Had the folks who wanted to protect "traditional marriage" proposed removing marriage from the legal framework and replacing it with "civil union" do you have any idea the groundswell of support they would have had? So, why didn't they? Why was there no campaign to remove "traditional marriage" from the legal framework? Why, instead, did a whole bunch of religious folks sponsor Prop 8 instead of a far superior and equal solution of removing the state altogether from "traditional marriage"? Simple, Proposition 8 wasn't about marriage. It was about attacking "the gays". And people in the tech industry are smart enough to see it for what it was--a well-funded effort to inject religion-based bigotry into California law. And Eich is paying the price for that.
  - exodust 13y ago
    If I knew more about Prop 8 details, I'd comment on prop 8. I prefer the social and philosophical ideas around the wider debate, and the online activism overreaction, the tweeting Mozilla staff (who should just resign themselves IMHO). If you're right that Prop 8 was about attacking gay people, then that sucks. This is where I'd like to hear from Eich on the matter. I've automatically assumed his innocence on the matter of gay-hatred, especially after reading his March 26 blog post. Same-sex couples can still get married anyway, have a wedding without fear of the riot squad shutting the party down. Mickey Rooney married eight times. That's a lot of wedding parties. Definitely have the parties, the honeymoons. That stuff is the important stuff, then go after de-facto/unmarried/same-sex rights of couples. Certificates for emergencies and so on, come on there's not actually that many rights. Some can be sorted out with co-habitation agreements and other arrangements. What a sad thing for the Mozilla CEO that his own staff tweet against him just a day after his March 26 blog post promoting equality and stating he was open to advice from the LGBT community... https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/