10 ms·

I'm still mad about the Brendan Eich thing. Like, mad. I'm totally fine with anybody pursuing whatever kind of political agenda they want, but at the moment y

I'm still mad about the Brendan Eich thing. Like, mad. I'm totally fine with anybody pursuing whatever kind of political agenda they want, but at the moment you start to derail real progress, the moment you attack one of the best organizations who has literally been busting its ass for the last decade to change the world for no profit... Well, you declared war. I think this whole debacle should be a rallying cry that we're not going to accept this kind of bullying anymore. The worst part is, the progressive platform has some really important things to say about the way we live. We're not an equal society yet. We still have more changes we need to make to secure the freedom and happiness of everybody, especially groups that have been historically marginalized. All the more reason to shut down the bullies who have domineered the narrative, produced nothing but useless bickering, and have sought nothing but divisiveness at every turn in the everlasting quest for more pageviews. I'm looking at you, Gawker. Don't tolerate this any more. Brendan Eich was just one casualty. It's time to start sticking up for ourselves.

pgrote 13y ago
"It's time to start sticking up for ourselves" Can you clarify what group does "ourselves" reference?
- k__ 13y ago
  Probably people with other opinions than the masses.
  - kourt 13y ago
    Proposition 8 was an opinion of the masses: it received 7,001,084 (52.24%) of the votes.
    - MrZongle2 13y ago
      It amazes me that you've been downvoted for posting a fact. Proposition 8 was passed by a majority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%28200... However one feels about the result, only a fascist would want to shove that bit of history down the memory hole.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        MrZongle2 13y ago
        Why it happened doesn't matter in this context. Suppressing the record of what did happen is Soviet-style revisionism. But to address your point, according to at least one SF-based news organization, Proposition 8 spending had no effect on the vote: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Prop-8-spending-found-to-have-swayed-no-voters-3184734.php http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Prop-8-spending-found... Edit: apparently decrying revisionism and citing a reference in response to a now-deleted post is downvote worthy. Thanks, free thinkers of HN!
        wwweston 13y ago
        > Prop8 was passed based on propaganda and a lot of out-of- state funding... Under normal circumstances prop8 would never have passed in California of all places. "The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.0 million ($11.3 million or 29.1% from outside California) and $44.1 million ($13.2 million or 30.0% from outside California), respectively"[1] If money distorted normal circumstances, presumably it did so to a greater degree on the "against" side of Prop 8. If you take Prop 22 as the earlier norm ("61% in favor to 39% against"[2]), that makes some sense. I think it's a lot more likely, though, that the advertising probably only affected a minority of participants (if any) and Eich's support put him in company with the then majority of the state. That doesn't mean it was the right thing. It does, however, have something to say about whether his support puts him beyond the pale for a leadership role. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Campaign_funding_and_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000...
      - binarycrusader 13y ago
        "opinion of the masses" is a subjective interpretation of events; not a fact. As to "passed by a majority", I would say, that depends on how you define a majority. A majority in the context of voting laws, perhaps. But I sincerely doubt it was actually representative of the entire population of California as a whole. I also find it a bit ironic that someone would resort to name-calling in a thread attempting to defend the unpopular views of an individual as their right to have.
    - binarycrusader 13y ago
      An opinion of the masses willing to vote is not necessarily an opinion of the masses. Regardless, even if it was a "majority" of people capable of voting, there's a reason the phrase "tyranny of the majority" exists. There are a number of unnamed social ills and other problems that could still exist today in some countries or that would have likely lasted longer if we had waited for "popular opinion" to change. I don't agree with forcing Eich out, but Mozilla should have known better than to pick a candidate that was going to be controversial to begin with. A person in leadership should be and often is held to a higher set of expectations.
      - baddox 13y ago
        > An opinion of the masses willing to vote is not necessarily an opinion of the masses. So you're setting up an unfalsifiable claim, unless you have a way to gather the opinions of literally every single person that's guaranteed to yield accurate representations of their opinions.
        aaronbrethorst 13y ago
        Nah, it's really not. Check out RV/LV polling numbers from 2008. I'm sure they showed a difference.
        baddox 13y ago
        I doubt they polled everyone. And I doubt that anyone can prove that there wasn't some sort of bias in the poll.
    - r0muald 13y ago
      Proposition 8 has nothing to do with Mozilla except for those who decided it was OK to go witch-hunting against the new CEO (as if Brendan Eich was not already in a very powerful position from the very beginning).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
bkor 13y ago
"the moment you attack one of the best organizations" Nobody attacked Mozilla. You're totally off base.
- i80and 13y ago
  Some people fell just one step shy of demanding that others boycott Firefox. I'd call that an attack on Mozilla.
  - weaksauce 13y ago
    there actually were websites that called for a boycott of firefox.
  - bowlofpetunias 13y ago
    Some people would call attacking the decision of the Mozilla leadership supporting Mozilla. I would not have given a f* about Eich if I didn't care about Mozilla.
- M2Ys4U 13y ago
  Plenty of people did attack Mozilla, though, and it was quite disheartening to watch.
  - bkor 13y ago
    No, they strongly disliked Brendan Eich to be a CEO of Mozilla. Their dislike is with the CEO, not the company. But because of the strong dislike, they cannot support the company. Boycotting a company because of not wanting the CEO is not an attack on the company. It is expressing that you really don't like / disagree / hate / whatever the company. I strongly dislike Brendan Eich was made a CEO. I don't want to support Mozilla in any way and I would've been very critical about Mozilla. Knowing that he supported prop 8 and then knowingly making him a CEO is not the company / organization I supported (fyi: I've triaged 600+ bugs, used to be a Bugzilla developer, have git.mozilla.org commit access, etc).
- carlio 13y ago
danso 13y ago
Sorry, but "sticking up" for what exactly? Eich's defenders seem to treat him like a child...like, he doesn't know how to phrase a statement like, "I'm against civil unions, not gays, which is why I donated to Prop 8". This isn't about Eich being punished for a "mistake" back in 2008, his detractors are unhappy that Eich does not believe that Prop 8 was a mistake, back in 2008 and today, six years later. I'm not going to get into a debate about whether Prop 8 was right or wrong. But don't treat this like it's a witch hunt for long past grievances. Until he says otherwise, Eich is a supporter of Prop 8. That doesn't make him evil, that doesn't make him incapable of holding leadership. But for people for whom Prop 8 is a big deal, I think it's understandable why they would continue to press the issue with Eich and his leadership.
- saraid216 13y ago
  Effectively, people are saying that we should defend Eich for the same reason we should defend weev: less that they are people and more that they are pawns.
- smsm42 13y ago
  Prop 8 was not about civil unions. If you want to discuss it, at least get your facts right. Benefits equality, etc. that is commonly understood under civil union umbrella existed in California long before prop 8, and prop 8 was not going to change that. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califo... For people for whom prop 8 is a big deal it would be a good thing to at least know what it was about.
  - bunderbunder 13y ago
    Well, it depends on what you mean by "commonly understood under civil union umbrella". A lot of people mistakenly believe that civil unions are just a separate-but-equal version of marriage. That version of civil unions is a fairy tale. Speaking as one member of a couple that finally gave up on making a civil union work and went ahead with an actual marriage a few years back, I can say that there's a night-and-day difference between the two. The institutional benefits that were available to us as a legally recognized civil union could be counted on one hand, and most of them were still not quite the same as what married people get. People who only have a civil union aren't allowed to share health savings accounts the way married people can, for example. The number of finacial and convenience perks we acquired the day after our marriage license got filed with the county clerk, on the other hand, are practically innumerable. We feel like shits for exercising the privilege we enjoy as a heterosexual couple. But we're getting pragmatic in our old age, so here we are.
patrickg_zill 13y ago
I think your point is (paraphrasing), we canned a very productive engineer and manager over his un-PC views expressed in his personal life, but which no one at his organization was affected by; and in return, since none of the people criticizing him or pushing for his departure has the ability to truly replace his talent, we have the prospect of the unproductive people criticizing the people who actually get things done. How accurate am I in understanding your view?
- rjzzleep 13y ago
  i think the real bitter irony here is that brendan eich not only helped build, but also protected the platform that helped oust him. when i say the platform, I don't mean the web, I mean the open web, where you can freely express yourself as aggressively as you want(which is a good thing). not to step on anyones toes, but we effectively ousted a very productive engineer from a company he helped found to replace him with a marketing guy(no offense really, i know he's been with mozilla forever, and loyalty deserves to be rewarded). i really hope i won't have this moment in 10 years thinking back, man where did mozilla ideals move so much away from mine, and i know everyone is going to jump on this part of cynic good ol me, especially all the mozillians here, but i still very well remember the time i spent in irc ~20 years ago, where the people thinking about mass surveillance were a select few stamped as insane anti social paranoid geeks.
- king_jester 13y ago
  > but which no one at his organization was affected by; Uh what? There are most certainly LGBTQ folks who work for Mozilla in some capacity or another and they most certainly are affected by nationally focused political efforts to deny them access to a basic institution.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Particularly any LGBTQ Mozilla employees that lived in the state of California between 2008 and 2013, which I assume is many of them.
  - patrickg_zill 13y ago
crystaln 13y ago
I read this twice, and I still have no idea what you are trying to say, which side of any issue you are on, or what makes you any different from over-reacting haters on either side.
- ffbellfhtlflf 13y ago
  How can you not understand it? He's saying the progressive left has started to go too far in the mechanisms they use to bring about admittedly needed change. You don't go about winning the hearts and minds of people you disagree with by harassing them and getting them fired from their jobs. This only sets movements back. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it"
- bane 13y ago
  He must be talking about Eich, since he was clearly supporting the group of bullies who were so flagrant and pernicious that they'd even pass a law to prevent grown consenting adults from having meaningful relationships with each other.
- kourt 13y ago
  "which side of any issue you are on" Maybe he's on everybody's side. What freedom is more important than the freedom to be true to one's self? What good is free speech[1] when the private, individual exercise thereof results in the professional equivalent of capital punishment? [1] Whether campaign contributions are always identical to speech in all contexts is immaterial here: in this case, they're close enough.
  - crystaln 13y ago
    Sure, he could be on everyone's side and trying to clarify the issue. If so, he's doing a rather poor job. However, it seemed rather obvious that he had an intention to take some sort of stance on an issue, something he also failed at.
- homulilly 13y ago
  Pretending to be on one side while implicitly supporting the other. Fairly common line of thinking amongst self-proclaimed moderates who try to hide, or wont acknowledge their own reactionary politics.
jhonovich 13y ago
"produced nothing but useless bickering" Brendan Eich produced _nothing_ but useless bickering?
kaonashi 13y ago
I find absolutely nothing wrong with the way he was treated. To say that somehow he was the victim of bullying, when he was the one who was taking action to deny other people their rights, is so morally backwards I have a hard time conceding that you're arguing in good faith.
- radmuzom 13y ago
  It's strange that this is getting downvoted. Nobody went and physically abused Eich to remove him as CEO. It's strange that those who are supporting Eich for his right to his own views are against our right to express outrage.
  - bzbarsky 13y ago
    The right to express outrage is not an absolute. See http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/bz/archives/2014/04/speech_and_consequences.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/bz/archives/2014/04/speech_an... for what I consider some obvious limitations on it. You're saying there were no instances of item #1 on my list, and I believe you are correct. However, there certainly were instances of item #2.
  - zheshishei 13y ago
    > Nobody went and physically abused Eich to remove him as CEO. I hope you're not saying that bullying only occurs when physical abuse happens, because if you are, you're pretty much denying that cyber-bullying happens. Whether or not the response to Eich counts as cyberbullying, I'm making no comment on that.
nostromo 13y ago
And where do you draw the line? Are you going to defend people that oppose Women's Suffrage too? What about slavery supporters? These were just political opinions once too. But today you'll find that they get you fired as CEO. And for good reason: blacks and women (and gays) are your customers and employees and business partners.
- batmansbelt 13y ago
  And friends, family, and neighbours.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  I'm genuinely curious where you would draw your line. Would you support firing Mozilla's CEO if it's revealed he voted for Mitt Romney? What if he gave his campaign $1000?
  - davidw 13y ago
    Maybe we can all agree that it's a fuzzy, gray line, and move on to talking about things that can actually move our businesses forward, or are cool hacks, interesting phenomenon or otherwise generate more light than heat.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      A fuzzy, gray line that cost a smart hacker a job he was otherwise incredibly well-suited for? If it's really that indistinct, it's scary: I might want to work for a company some day that cares about where that line is, and I'd like to stay on the right side of it.
      - davidw 13y ago
        "Working for" and "being the leader and representative of" are two different things. Eich's views were known to Mozilla for a while before this blew up. If you want an honest answer, I think if you want to play the political game, you need to keep your cards close to your chest. You may not like that answer, and you folks can furiously click on the downvote arrow all you like, but I think that's the reality of it: for an extreme example, look at how closely every single aspect of US presidential candidates' lives are picked over, both present and past. I'll add to that: not everyone should do that - I'm glad that some people have stuck their necks out in the past. We all owe some of them a debt of gratitude. But, by and large, they're probably not the same people aiming at the top job in a large corporation.
macrael 13y ago
I actually really liked Marco Arment's take on this. http://www.marco.org/2014/04/04/political-views http://www.marco.org/2014/04/04/political-views As time marches forward our society's tolerance for certain viewpoints has changed. This is a good thing.
- zobzu 13y ago
  Or.. this is a bad thing. It goes totally both ways. What if tolerance for your viewpoint is lower? You're not longer allowed to have an opinion not shared by the majority? Not sure how that's a good thing at all. Imagine you are 100 years ago and your viewpoint is "gay marriage should be allowed"? in fact, back then, some people would probably be killed for thinking that. The vast majority of the collective conscientiousness certainly thought this was wrong. And look where we are today.
rmrfrmrf 13y ago
I would take a step back and reflect on why you're so upset. The reaction you've posted is almost awkwardly inappropriate given the circumstances.
arrrg 13y ago
“I don’t think having a CEO who represents the company that donated to prevent gay marriage is cool. I will stop using the product of the company. I ask you to do the same.” That was the most common reaction. I think that’s completely harmless and unproblematic. That’s how responsible adults should act. So I’m not really sure what you are angry about.
benatkin 13y ago
Cool story. A more marketing-oriented person being CEO is a better choice for a community-oriented organization, and should have been made by the board in the first place. This [1] puts it succinctly. "The mistake made was not made by Brendan Eich" and "The people who messed up here are the board of the Mozilla Corporation." This is Mozilla's board doing what they should have done all along, except that Brendan Eich can't be CTO anymore. 1: http://seldo.com/weblog/2014/04/04/on_brendan_eich_equality_and_freedom http://seldo.com/weblog/2014/04/04/on_brendan_eich_equality_...
homulilly 13y ago
Brendan Eich was working pretty hard to derail real progress too, ironically. It's pretty understandable for people to be upset about the appointment of someone unqualified to CEO of an organization they strongly care about and someone who actively works against equal rights is incredibly unqualified to lead an organization like Mozilla, no matter their technical or business expertise.
- hackuser 13y ago
  > Brendan Eich was working pretty hard to derail real progress I don't support what he did, but did he do anything beyond make the donation?
ebbv 13y ago
Oh please. Bullying my ass. People found his views repugnant and reacted accordingly. Maybe you don't think supporting Prop 8 is repugnant, but lots of us do. This isn't a question of him supporting second amendment rights, or thinking the ACA is over-reaching. This is him actively supporting the squashing of the civil rights of a minority group because he doesn't approve of their relationship. Not only the donating to Prop 8, but even now in 2014 standing by those views. It is certainly his right to hold those views, but they are repellant enough that I no longer felt OK using Mozilla products. Other people shared my view. Enough people that Mozilla felt compelled to react. This is not bullying. This is freedom of speech all around and a free market, and a result of that. You and Andrew Sullivan pretending Eich is a victim of bullying are being ridiculous. If he had been a member of NAMBLA would anyone say it was bullying? No. Prop 8 support may not be as bad as NAMBLA, but it's pretty awful in my view all the same.
lotsofmangos 13y ago
I think it was good that Eich stepped down as he was a bad choice for CEO as it is a leadership role in which politics matters. Your militancy on this however is poisonous, there is a need for people building things here, not preparing for one of these abstract wars on concepts that folk seem to so love. Mozilla is a software collaboration and it needs to ship, the last thing they need is social warriors stirring the pot. If you want to help, fix bugs. Nobody won anything here, at best we all maybe learned something.
Tloewald 13y ago
> I'm totally fine with anybody pursuing whatever kind of political agenda they want, but at the moment you start to derail real progress, the moment you attack one of the best organizations who has literally been busting its ass for the last decade to change the world for no profit 1) So you're contradicting yourself in one sentence. I wish to pursue an equal rights agenda, and in so doing protest, loudly, when people who publicly act against equal rights are promoted to prominent positions. Now, I didn't expect Brendan Eich to be fired (he wasn't) or step down (which he did) but maybe to actually explain himself (he didn't). If his feelings are so strongly held, and he values free speech so much, then by all means let him make his case. 2) Mozilla is a non-profit, but plenty of the people working for it make perfectly decent salaries. http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Mozilla-Salaries-E19129.htm http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Mozilla-Salaries-E19129.htm > All the more reason to shut down the bullies who have domineered the narrative, produced nothing but useless bickering, and have sought nothing but divisiveness at every turn in the everlasting quest for more pageviews. I'm looking at you, Gawker. 3) Seems to me like it's the pot calling the kettle black.
king_jester 13y ago
I feel like there's a bingo card that has all of your half-assed excuses on it. > I'm totally fine with anybody pursuing whatever kind of political agenda they want, but at the moment you start to derail real progress, the moment you attack one of the best organizations who has literally been busting its ass for the last decade to change the world for no profit... I'm fine with pursuing your politics until I feel your politics are inconvenient. > Well, you declared war. I think this whole debacle should be a rallying cry that we're not going to accept this kind of bullying anymore. Not tolerating bullies that seek to curtail your existence through law does not make you a bully. > The worst part is, the progressive platform has some really important things to say about the way we live. We're not an equal society yet. We still have more changes we need to make to secure the freedom and happiness of everybody, especially groups that have been historically marginalized. How exactly are you going to do that by letting the CEO of Mozilla be a supporter of Prop 8? How exactly are you helping anyone by outright enshrining in law a discrimination against gay folks? > All the more reason to shut down the bullies who have domineered the narrative, produced nothing but useless bickering, and have sought nothing but divisiveness at every turn in the everlasting quest for more pageviews. I'm looking at you, Gawker. Of course, all those people who are affected by this are just being decisive and mean, leave Brendan Eich alone! > Don't tolerate this any more. Brendan Eich was just one casualty. It's time to start sticking up for ourselves. Sticking up for ourselves is what people were doing by voicing their complaints with Eich and his support for Prop 8. Nobody was launching a campaign to strip him of his rights in law.
- jdp23 13y ago
  > I feel like there's a bingo card that has all of your half-assed excuses on it. You mean something along these lines? https://twitter.com/eassumption/status/451921312609361922 https://twitter.com/eassumption/status/451921312609361922
qwerta 13y ago
I think most people hate him subconsciously for inventing JavaScript abomination. The current back splash is just an camouflage for that :-)
generalk 13y ago
I don't understand a thing you're saying. but at the moment you start to derail real progress, the moment you attack one of the best organizations who has literally been busting its ass for the last decade to change the world for no profit...Well, you declared war. I'm not familiar with anyone that attacked Mozilla. The heaviest I saw were boycotts. That doesn't sound like "war" to me, that sounds like the right tack to take. Calling it "war" is overly-dramatic. Don't tolerate this any more. Brendan Eich was just one casualty. It's time to start sticking up for ourselves. Let's start looking at reality. Brendon Eich had MANY opportunities to assure both his detractors and Mozilla's LGBTQ employees that he was dedicated to ensuring that Mozilla would remain inclusive regardless of sexual orientation. He pursued none of them. Look, I can't speak to Eich's effectiveness as CEO, but it seems like handling a PR situation is part-and-parcel of being a CEO. Eich chose to resign. We're not an equal society yet. We still have more changes we need to make to secure the freedom and happiness of everybody, especially groups that have been historically marginalized. Steps that include speaking out against and boycotting entities that put bigots in charge. (Bigot may be a strong word here, I don't know Eich personally, but he did donate to get Prop 8 passed, which certainly sounds like bigoted behavior.) What else would you have the aggrieved parties do? All the more reason to shut down the bullies that [...] produced nothing but useless bickering The irony burns.
msbarnett 13y ago
To crib a very old phrase: I cannot rightly apprehend the confusion of ideas that would lead one to believe that it was ok for Brandon Eich to exercise his Freedom of Speech to support an attempt to relegate many mozillans and other Californians to second-class citizenship, but that it was not ok for others to exercise their Freedom of Speech to express their feelings about Eich and his suitableness as a public-facing representative of Mozilla.
- invalidOrTaken 13y ago
  >...to express their feelings about Eich and his suitableness as a public-facing representative of Mozilla. But who made him "unsuitable?" Was Eich trumpeting his donations? This whole thing has a "Answer me when I talk to you, boy! ----> Don't talk back to me, boy!" feel to it.
  - msbarnett 13y ago
    > But who made him "unsuitable?" Was Eich trumpeting his donations? Eich fundamentally believes that many mozillans are second-class human beings, worthy of less rights and respect than others. That makes him enormously unsuitable to lead Mozilla.
- sergiosgc 13y ago
  Do a mental exercise. Imagine a very vocal group of anti-gay activists causing a tech company to get cold feet about promoting an LGBT supporter to CEO. That's the dual scenario. Does your opinion still hold? This is the Pandora box that was opened here.
  - msbarnett 13y ago
    It's not much of a Pandora's box. They're certainly well-within their rights to try to do so. And civil rights activists would call for counter-boycotts, etc. That's how society shakes this stuff out. That's, fundamentally, how free speech and freedom of association and voting with your money works. And more to the point, this is the exact world we already live in. Conservative groups pressured World Vision into reversing their stance of accepting gay marriage just a couple of weeks ago. The Mozilla-Eich brouhaha didn't open any strange new Pandora's box, this kind of thing has been a fundamental part of the American civil landscape for well over a century!
pjbrunet 13y ago
"we're not going to accept this kind of bullying anymore." What are you proposing? Can you force OKCupid to treat all browsers the same?
mbrutsch 13y ago
The way I understand it, you're free to say what you please, and free to get called out for it. Having the internet harass your business is a distraction, regardless of how "right" it may be, and it's understandable that concessions mus be made to keep the business running smoothly, lest you endanger the livelihoods of everyone who works there.
LaGrange 13y ago
"I'm totally fine with anybody pursuing whatever kind of political agenda they want, but at the moment you start to derail real progress," Exactly why Eich had to go. "Well, you declared war." Yes, the right wingers did. "we're not going to accept this kind of bullying anymore." Exactly why Eich had to go. "It's time to start sticking up for ourselves." Said people bullied by people like Eich, and stuck up for themselves. Yes, I do think that LGBT rights are far more important than Mozilla.
temphn 13y ago
The answer is to stop arguing with words and start targeting Gawker's business model. Their advertiser list is in plain view. Go to their about page to see all the megacorps that have done sponsored ads with them. Now take the worst things Gawker has ever written and send it to the people who run the advertising accounts at those companies (you can get their names off LinkedIn or whatever). For example, send the #GawkingatRapeCulture hashtag to the Coke rep who chose to advertise on Gawker and ask them whther Coke is intentionally supporting rape culture by donating to Gawker. Make sure not do this purely as a solo op; once you have the data on their advertisers, pull together a website that makes it easy for anyone to chip in via one click. Those who run sites with advertising inventory can also donate ad slots at lower CPMs to the sponsors of Gawker in order to pull revenue away from Gawker. They profit from clickbait. So we need to hit these people in the wallet.
badman_ting 13y ago
Stop it, that was not an attack.

pgrote 13y ago

"It's time to start sticking up for ourselves" Can you clarify what group does "ourselves" reference?

k__ 13y ago
Probably people with other opinions than the masses.
- kourt 13y ago
  Proposition 8 was an opinion of the masses: it received 7,001,084 (52.24%) of the votes.
  - MrZongle2 13y ago
    It amazes me that you've been downvoted for posting a fact. Proposition 8 was passed by a majority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%28200... However one feels about the result, only a fascist would want to shove that bit of history down the memory hole.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - MrZongle2 13y ago
        Why it happened doesn't matter in this context. Suppressing the record of what did happen is Soviet-style revisionism. But to address your point, according to at least one SF-based news organization, Proposition 8 spending had no effect on the vote: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Prop-8-spending-found-to-have-swayed-no-voters-3184734.php http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Prop-8-spending-found... Edit: apparently decrying revisionism and citing a reference in response to a now-deleted post is downvote worthy. Thanks, free thinkers of HN!
      - wwweston 13y ago
        > Prop8 was passed based on propaganda and a lot of out-of- state funding... Under normal circumstances prop8 would never have passed in California of all places. "The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.0 million ($11.3 million or 29.1% from outside California) and $44.1 million ($13.2 million or 30.0% from outside California), respectively"[1] If money distorted normal circumstances, presumably it did so to a greater degree on the "against" side of Prop 8. If you take Prop 22 as the earlier norm ("61% in favor to 39% against"[2]), that makes some sense. I think it's a lot more likely, though, that the advertising probably only affected a minority of participants (if any) and Eich's support put him in company with the then majority of the state. That doesn't mean it was the right thing. It does, however, have something to say about whether his support puts him beyond the pale for a leadership role. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Campaign_funding_and_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000...
    - binarycrusader 13y ago
      "opinion of the masses" is a subjective interpretation of events; not a fact. As to "passed by a majority", I would say, that depends on how you define a majority. A majority in the context of voting laws, perhaps. But I sincerely doubt it was actually representative of the entire population of California as a whole. I also find it a bit ironic that someone would resort to name-calling in a thread attempting to defend the unpopular views of an individual as their right to have.
  - binarycrusader 13y ago
    An opinion of the masses willing to vote is not necessarily an opinion of the masses. Regardless, even if it was a "majority" of people capable of voting, there's a reason the phrase "tyranny of the majority" exists. There are a number of unnamed social ills and other problems that could still exist today in some countries or that would have likely lasted longer if we had waited for "popular opinion" to change. I don't agree with forcing Eich out, but Mozilla should have known better than to pick a candidate that was going to be controversial to begin with. A person in leadership should be and often is held to a higher set of expectations.
    - baddox 13y ago
      > An opinion of the masses willing to vote is not necessarily an opinion of the masses. So you're setting up an unfalsifiable claim, unless you have a way to gather the opinions of literally every single person that's guaranteed to yield accurate representations of their opinions.
      - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
        Nah, it's really not. Check out RV/LV polling numbers from 2008. I'm sure they showed a difference.
        baddox 13y ago
        I doubt they polled everyone. And I doubt that anyone can prove that there wasn't some sort of bias in the poll.
  - r0muald 13y ago
    Proposition 8 has nothing to do with Mozilla except for those who decided it was OK to go witch-hunting against the new CEO (as if Brendan Eich was not already in a very powerful position from the very beginning).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

bkor 13y ago

"the moment you attack one of the best organizations" Nobody attacked Mozilla. You're totally off base.

i80and 13y ago
Some people fell just one step shy of demanding that others boycott Firefox. I'd call that an attack on Mozilla.
- weaksauce 13y ago
  there actually were websites that called for a boycott of firefox.
- bowlofpetunias 13y ago
  Some people would call attacking the decision of the Mozilla leadership supporting Mozilla. I would not have given a f* about Eich if I didn't care about Mozilla.
M2Ys4U 13y ago
Plenty of people did attack Mozilla, though, and it was quite disheartening to watch.
- bkor 13y ago
  No, they strongly disliked Brendan Eich to be a CEO of Mozilla. Their dislike is with the CEO, not the company. But because of the strong dislike, they cannot support the company. Boycotting a company because of not wanting the CEO is not an attack on the company. It is expressing that you really don't like / disagree / hate / whatever the company. I strongly dislike Brendan Eich was made a CEO. I don't want to support Mozilla in any way and I would've been very critical about Mozilla. Knowing that he supported prop 8 and then knowingly making him a CEO is not the company / organization I supported (fyi: I've triaged 600+ bugs, used to be a Bugzilla developer, have git.mozilla.org commit access, etc).
carlio 13y ago

danso 13y ago

Sorry, but "sticking up" for what exactly? Eich's defenders seem to treat him like a child...like, he doesn't know how to phrase a statement like, "I'm against civil unions, not gays, which is why I donated to Prop 8". This isn't about Eich being punished for a "mistake" back in 2008, his detractors are unhappy that Eich does not believe that Prop 8 was a mistake, back in 2008 and today, six years later. I'm not going to get into a debate about whether Prop 8 was right or wrong. But don't treat this like it's a witch hunt for long past grievances. Until he says otherwise, Eich is a supporter of Prop 8. That doesn't make him evil, that doesn't make him incapable of holding leadership. But for people for whom Prop 8 is a big deal, I think it's understandable why they would continue to press the issue with Eich and his leadership.

saraid216 13y ago
Effectively, people are saying that we should defend Eich for the same reason we should defend weev: less that they are people and more that they are pawns.
smsm42 13y ago
Prop 8 was not about civil unions. If you want to discuss it, at least get your facts right. Benefits equality, etc. that is commonly understood under civil union umbrella existed in California long before prop 8, and prop 8 was not going to change that. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califo... For people for whom prop 8 is a big deal it would be a good thing to at least know what it was about.
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  Well, it depends on what you mean by "commonly understood under civil union umbrella". A lot of people mistakenly believe that civil unions are just a separate-but-equal version of marriage. That version of civil unions is a fairy tale. Speaking as one member of a couple that finally gave up on making a civil union work and went ahead with an actual marriage a few years back, I can say that there's a night-and-day difference between the two. The institutional benefits that were available to us as a legally recognized civil union could be counted on one hand, and most of them were still not quite the same as what married people get. People who only have a civil union aren't allowed to share health savings accounts the way married people can, for example. The number of finacial and convenience perks we acquired the day after our marriage license got filed with the county clerk, on the other hand, are practically innumerable. We feel like shits for exercising the privilege we enjoy as a heterosexual couple. But we're getting pragmatic in our old age, so here we are.

patrickg_zill 13y ago

I think your point is (paraphrasing), we canned a very productive engineer and manager over his un-PC views expressed in his personal life, but which no one at his organization was affected by; and in return, since none of the people criticizing him or pushing for his departure has the ability to truly replace his talent, we have the prospect of the unproductive people criticizing the people who actually get things done. How accurate am I in understanding your view?

rjzzleep 13y ago
i think the real bitter irony here is that brendan eich not only helped build, but also protected the platform that helped oust him. when i say the platform, I don't mean the web, I mean the open web, where you can freely express yourself as aggressively as you want(which is a good thing). not to step on anyones toes, but we effectively ousted a very productive engineer from a company he helped found to replace him with a marketing guy(no offense really, i know he's been with mozilla forever, and loyalty deserves to be rewarded). i really hope i won't have this moment in 10 years thinking back, man where did mozilla ideals move so much away from mine, and i know everyone is going to jump on this part of cynic good ol me, especially all the mozillians here, but i still very well remember the time i spent in irc ~20 years ago, where the people thinking about mass surveillance were a select few stamped as insane anti social paranoid geeks.
king_jester 13y ago
> but which no one at his organization was affected by; Uh what? There are most certainly LGBTQ folks who work for Mozilla in some capacity or another and they most certainly are affected by nationally focused political efforts to deny them access to a basic institution.
- Crito 13y ago
  Particularly any LGBTQ Mozilla employees that lived in the state of California between 2008 and 2013, which I assume is many of them.
- patrickg_zill 13y ago

crystaln 13y ago

I read this twice, and I still have no idea what you are trying to say, which side of any issue you are on, or what makes you any different from over-reacting haters on either side.

ffbellfhtlflf 13y ago
How can you not understand it? He's saying the progressive left has started to go too far in the mechanisms they use to bring about admittedly needed change. You don't go about winning the hearts and minds of people you disagree with by harassing them and getting them fired from their jobs. This only sets movements back. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it"
bane 13y ago
He must be talking about Eich, since he was clearly supporting the group of bullies who were so flagrant and pernicious that they'd even pass a law to prevent grown consenting adults from having meaningful relationships with each other.
kourt 13y ago
"which side of any issue you are on" Maybe he's on everybody's side. What freedom is more important than the freedom to be true to one's self? What good is free speech[1] when the private, individual exercise thereof results in the professional equivalent of capital punishment? [1] Whether campaign contributions are always identical to speech in all contexts is immaterial here: in this case, they're close enough.
- crystaln 13y ago
  Sure, he could be on everyone's side and trying to clarify the issue. If so, he's doing a rather poor job. However, it seemed rather obvious that he had an intention to take some sort of stance on an issue, something he also failed at.
homulilly 13y ago
Pretending to be on one side while implicitly supporting the other. Fairly common line of thinking amongst self-proclaimed moderates who try to hide, or wont acknowledge their own reactionary politics.

jhonovich 13y ago

"produced nothing but useless bickering" Brendan Eich produced _nothing_ but useless bickering?

kaonashi 13y ago

I find absolutely nothing wrong with the way he was treated. To say that somehow he was the victim of bullying, when he was the one who was taking action to deny other people their rights, is so morally backwards I have a hard time conceding that you're arguing in good faith.

radmuzom 13y ago
It's strange that this is getting downvoted. Nobody went and physically abused Eich to remove him as CEO. It's strange that those who are supporting Eich for his right to his own views are against our right to express outrage.
- bzbarsky 13y ago
  The right to express outrage is not an absolute. See http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/bz/archives/2014/04/speech_and_consequences.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/bz/archives/2014/04/speech_an... for what I consider some obvious limitations on it. You're saying there were no instances of item #1 on my list, and I believe you are correct. However, there certainly were instances of item #2.
- zheshishei 13y ago
  > Nobody went and physically abused Eich to remove him as CEO. I hope you're not saying that bullying only occurs when physical abuse happens, because if you are, you're pretty much denying that cyber-bullying happens. Whether or not the response to Eich counts as cyberbullying, I'm making no comment on that.

nostromo 13y ago

And where do you draw the line? Are you going to defend people that oppose Women's Suffrage too? What about slavery supporters? These were just political opinions once too. But today you'll find that they get you fired as CEO. And for good reason: blacks and women (and gays) are your customers and employees and business partners.

batmansbelt 13y ago
And friends, family, and neighbours.
twoodfin 13y ago
I'm genuinely curious where you would draw your line. Would you support firing Mozilla's CEO if it's revealed he voted for Mitt Romney? What if he gave his campaign $1000?
- davidw 13y ago
  Maybe we can all agree that it's a fuzzy, gray line, and move on to talking about things that can actually move our businesses forward, or are cool hacks, interesting phenomenon or otherwise generate more light than heat.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    A fuzzy, gray line that cost a smart hacker a job he was otherwise incredibly well-suited for? If it's really that indistinct, it's scary: I might want to work for a company some day that cares about where that line is, and I'd like to stay on the right side of it.
    - davidw 13y ago
      "Working for" and "being the leader and representative of" are two different things. Eich's views were known to Mozilla for a while before this blew up. If you want an honest answer, I think if you want to play the political game, you need to keep your cards close to your chest. You may not like that answer, and you folks can furiously click on the downvote arrow all you like, but I think that's the reality of it: for an extreme example, look at how closely every single aspect of US presidential candidates' lives are picked over, both present and past. I'll add to that: not everyone should do that - I'm glad that some people have stuck their necks out in the past. We all owe some of them a debt of gratitude. But, by and large, they're probably not the same people aiming at the top job in a large corporation.

macrael 13y ago

I actually really liked Marco Arment's take on this. http://www.marco.org/2014/04/04/political-views http://www.marco.org/2014/04/04/political-views As time marches forward our society's tolerance for certain viewpoints has changed. This is a good thing.

zobzu 13y ago
Or.. this is a bad thing. It goes totally both ways. What if tolerance for your viewpoint is lower? You're not longer allowed to have an opinion not shared by the majority? Not sure how that's a good thing at all. Imagine you are 100 years ago and your viewpoint is "gay marriage should be allowed"? in fact, back then, some people would probably be killed for thinking that. The vast majority of the collective conscientiousness certainly thought this was wrong. And look where we are today.

rmrfrmrf 13y ago

I would take a step back and reflect on why you're so upset. The reaction you've posted is almost awkwardly inappropriate given the circumstances.

arrrg 13y ago

“I don’t think having a CEO who represents the company that donated to prevent gay marriage is cool. I will stop using the product of the company. I ask you to do the same.” That was the most common reaction. I think that’s completely harmless and unproblematic. That’s how responsible adults should act. So I’m not really sure what you are angry about.

benatkin 13y ago

Cool story. A more marketing-oriented person being CEO is a better choice for a community-oriented organization, and should have been made by the board in the first place. This [1] puts it succinctly. "The mistake made was not made by Brendan Eich" and "The people who messed up here are the board of the Mozilla Corporation." This is Mozilla's board doing what they should have done all along, except that Brendan Eich can't be CTO anymore. 1: http://seldo.com/weblog/2014/04/04/on_brendan_eich_equality_and_freedom http://seldo.com/weblog/2014/04/04/on_brendan_eich_equality_...

homulilly 13y ago

Brendan Eich was working pretty hard to derail real progress too, ironically. It's pretty understandable for people to be upset about the appointment of someone unqualified to CEO of an organization they strongly care about and someone who actively works against equal rights is incredibly unqualified to lead an organization like Mozilla, no matter their technical or business expertise.

hackuser 13y ago
> Brendan Eich was working pretty hard to derail real progress I don't support what he did, but did he do anything beyond make the donation?

ebbv 13y ago

Oh please. Bullying my ass. People found his views repugnant and reacted accordingly. Maybe you don't think supporting Prop 8 is repugnant, but lots of us do. This isn't a question of him supporting second amendment rights, or thinking the ACA is over-reaching. This is him actively supporting the squashing of the civil rights of a minority group because he doesn't approve of their relationship. Not only the donating to Prop 8, but even now in 2014 standing by those views. It is certainly his right to hold those views, but they are repellant enough that I no longer felt OK using Mozilla products. Other people shared my view. Enough people that Mozilla felt compelled to react. This is not bullying. This is freedom of speech all around and a free market, and a result of that. You and Andrew Sullivan pretending Eich is a victim of bullying are being ridiculous. If he had been a member of NAMBLA would anyone say it was bullying? No. Prop 8 support may not be as bad as NAMBLA, but it's pretty awful in my view all the same.

lotsofmangos 13y ago

I think it was good that Eich stepped down as he was a bad choice for CEO as it is a leadership role in which politics matters. Your militancy on this however is poisonous, there is a need for people building things here, not preparing for one of these abstract wars on concepts that folk seem to so love. Mozilla is a software collaboration and it needs to ship, the last thing they need is social warriors stirring the pot. If you want to help, fix bugs. Nobody won anything here, at best we all maybe learned something.

Tloewald 13y ago

> I'm totally fine with anybody pursuing whatever kind of political agenda they want, but at the moment you start to derail real progress, the moment you attack one of the best organizations who has literally been busting its ass for the last decade to change the world for no profit 1) So you're contradicting yourself in one sentence. I wish to pursue an equal rights agenda, and in so doing protest, loudly, when people who publicly act against equal rights are promoted to prominent positions. Now, I didn't expect Brendan Eich to be fired (he wasn't) or step down (which he did) but maybe to actually explain himself (he didn't). If his feelings are so strongly held, and he values free speech so much, then by all means let him make his case. 2) Mozilla is a non-profit, but plenty of the people working for it make perfectly decent salaries. http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Mozilla-Salaries-E19129.htm http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Mozilla-Salaries-E19129.htm > All the more reason to shut down the bullies who have domineered the narrative, produced nothing but useless bickering, and have sought nothing but divisiveness at every turn in the everlasting quest for more pageviews. I'm looking at you, Gawker. 3) Seems to me like it's the pot calling the kettle black.

king_jester 13y ago

I feel like there's a bingo card that has all of your half-assed excuses on it. > I'm totally fine with anybody pursuing whatever kind of political agenda they want, but at the moment you start to derail real progress, the moment you attack one of the best organizations who has literally been busting its ass for the last decade to change the world for no profit... I'm fine with pursuing your politics until I feel your politics are inconvenient. > Well, you declared war. I think this whole debacle should be a rallying cry that we're not going to accept this kind of bullying anymore. Not tolerating bullies that seek to curtail your existence through law does not make you a bully. > The worst part is, the progressive platform has some really important things to say about the way we live. We're not an equal society yet. We still have more changes we need to make to secure the freedom and happiness of everybody, especially groups that have been historically marginalized. How exactly are you going to do that by letting the CEO of Mozilla be a supporter of Prop 8? How exactly are you helping anyone by outright enshrining in law a discrimination against gay folks? > All the more reason to shut down the bullies who have domineered the narrative, produced nothing but useless bickering, and have sought nothing but divisiveness at every turn in the everlasting quest for more pageviews. I'm looking at you, Gawker. Of course, all those people who are affected by this are just being decisive and mean, leave Brendan Eich alone! > Don't tolerate this any more. Brendan Eich was just one casualty. It's time to start sticking up for ourselves. Sticking up for ourselves is what people were doing by voicing their complaints with Eich and his support for Prop 8. Nobody was launching a campaign to strip him of his rights in law.

jdp23 13y ago
> I feel like there's a bingo card that has all of your half-assed excuses on it. You mean something along these lines? https://twitter.com/eassumption/status/451921312609361922 https://twitter.com/eassumption/status/451921312609361922

qwerta 13y ago

I think most people hate him subconsciously for inventing JavaScript abomination. The current back splash is just an camouflage for that :-)

generalk 13y ago

I don't understand a thing you're saying. but at the moment you start to derail real progress, the moment you attack one of the best organizations who has literally been busting its ass for the last decade to change the world for no profit...Well, you declared war. I'm not familiar with anyone that attacked Mozilla. The heaviest I saw were boycotts. That doesn't sound like "war" to me, that sounds like the right tack to take. Calling it "war" is overly-dramatic. Don't tolerate this any more. Brendan Eich was just one casualty. It's time to start sticking up for ourselves. Let's start looking at reality. Brendon Eich had MANY opportunities to assure both his detractors and Mozilla's LGBTQ employees that he was dedicated to ensuring that Mozilla would remain inclusive regardless of sexual orientation. He pursued none of them. Look, I can't speak to Eich's effectiveness as CEO, but it seems like handling a PR situation is part-and-parcel of being a CEO. Eich chose to resign. We're not an equal society yet. We still have more changes we need to make to secure the freedom and happiness of everybody, especially groups that have been historically marginalized. Steps that include speaking out against and boycotting entities that put bigots in charge. (Bigot may be a strong word here, I don't know Eich personally, but he did donate to get Prop 8 passed, which certainly sounds like bigoted behavior.) What else would you have the aggrieved parties do? All the more reason to shut down the bullies that [...] produced nothing but useless bickering The irony burns.

msbarnett 13y ago

To crib a very old phrase: I cannot rightly apprehend the confusion of ideas that would lead one to believe that it was ok for Brandon Eich to exercise his Freedom of Speech to support an attempt to relegate many mozillans and other Californians to second-class citizenship, but that it was not ok for others to exercise their Freedom of Speech to express their feelings about Eich and his suitableness as a public-facing representative of Mozilla.

invalidOrTaken 13y ago
>...to express their feelings about Eich and his suitableness as a public-facing representative of Mozilla. But who made him "unsuitable?" Was Eich trumpeting his donations? This whole thing has a "Answer me when I talk to you, boy! ----> Don't talk back to me, boy!" feel to it.
- msbarnett 13y ago
  > But who made him "unsuitable?" Was Eich trumpeting his donations? Eich fundamentally believes that many mozillans are second-class human beings, worthy of less rights and respect than others. That makes him enormously unsuitable to lead Mozilla.
sergiosgc 13y ago
Do a mental exercise. Imagine a very vocal group of anti-gay activists causing a tech company to get cold feet about promoting an LGBT supporter to CEO. That's the dual scenario. Does your opinion still hold? This is the Pandora box that was opened here.
- msbarnett 13y ago
  It's not much of a Pandora's box. They're certainly well-within their rights to try to do so. And civil rights activists would call for counter-boycotts, etc. That's how society shakes this stuff out. That's, fundamentally, how free speech and freedom of association and voting with your money works. And more to the point, this is the exact world we already live in. Conservative groups pressured World Vision into reversing their stance of accepting gay marriage just a couple of weeks ago. The Mozilla-Eich brouhaha didn't open any strange new Pandora's box, this kind of thing has been a fundamental part of the American civil landscape for well over a century!

pjbrunet 13y ago

"we're not going to accept this kind of bullying anymore." What are you proposing? Can you force OKCupid to treat all browsers the same?

mbrutsch 13y ago

The way I understand it, you're free to say what you please, and free to get called out for it. Having the internet harass your business is a distraction, regardless of how "right" it may be, and it's understandable that concessions mus be made to keep the business running smoothly, lest you endanger the livelihoods of everyone who works there.

LaGrange 13y ago

"I'm totally fine with anybody pursuing whatever kind of political agenda they want, but at the moment you start to derail real progress," Exactly why Eich had to go. "Well, you declared war." Yes, the right wingers did. "we're not going to accept this kind of bullying anymore." Exactly why Eich had to go. "It's time to start sticking up for ourselves." Said people bullied by people like Eich, and stuck up for themselves. Yes, I do think that LGBT rights are far more important than Mozilla.

temphn 13y ago

The answer is to stop arguing with words and start targeting Gawker's business model. Their advertiser list is in plain view. Go to their about page to see all the megacorps that have done sponsored ads with them. Now take the worst things Gawker has ever written and send it to the people who run the advertising accounts at those companies (you can get their names off LinkedIn or whatever). For example, send the #GawkingatRapeCulture hashtag to the Coke rep who chose to advertise on Gawker and ask them whther Coke is intentionally supporting rape culture by donating to Gawker. Make sure not do this purely as a solo op; once you have the data on their advertisers, pull together a website that makes it easy for anyone to chip in via one click. Those who run sites with advertising inventory can also donate ad slots at lower CPMs to the sponsors of Gawker in order to pull revenue away from Gawker. They profit from clickbait. So we need to hit these people in the wallet.

badman_ting 13y ago

Stop it, that was not an attack.