5 ms·

No word on if he supports the GLBT community hook, line and sinker. That's the litmus. EDIT: Wow. So if he does support the GLBT community, we don't need to kn

by rjohnk 12y ago

No word on if he supports the GLBT community hook, line and sinker. That's the litmus. EDIT: Wow. So if he does support the GLBT community, we don't need to know about it? My post that offensive to people? It's an important question to ask. Edit 2: I just love tolerance ;) Edit 3: I'm removing the /sarcasm tag because people are really confused by it for some reason.

bellerocky 12y ago
Your sarcasm doesn't help your argument, and this post is about Chris Beard and Mozilla, not anything else.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - rjohnk 12y ago
    ummm....no. It was in my original post to try to minimize pushback from those that take offense to anything that they disagree with or may find at any time offensive.
    - jasonlotito 12y ago
      No, it wasn't. Not that there is anyway to prove that. I saw the original post. Maybe you added it right after, but no, the original did not have it.
- obvious_throw 12y ago
  Except that, as has been demonstrated, the position itself carries particular requirements for the candidate's personal political opinions.
  - untog 12y ago
    Semantics are exactly what makes this difficult. You might say "requirements for the candidate's personal political opinions", others might say "requirements for the candidate to not hold offensive, discriminatory political opinions".
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - masklinn 12y ago
      > others might say "requirements for the candidate to not hold offensive, discriminatory political opinions". Or just you know don't give significant amount of money to enshrine your offensive and discriminatory political opinions into law, expect open arms when nominated to head a company generally considered progressive then whine that it's unfair to scrutinise and criticise your actions.
      - vgharl 12y ago
        > significant amount of money Is that what we're calling $1000 today? That's not even rent money in the bad areas of the Bay Area. > then whine that it's unfair Citation please. I really can't believe HN right now, trying to deny the fact that prop 8 passed. Unbelievable. Let's all rewrite history, getting rid of an inconvenient fact. Oh, and screw political freedom too. Your sense of offensiveness is offending.
        untog 12y ago
        trying to deny the fact that prop 8 passed Who is trying to deny that? What relevance does it even have to what we're talking about here?
        vgharl 12y ago
        Because if you are a reasonable person, then you realize crucifying a guy for having a consensus, mainstream opinion is absurd. It's revisionist, retro-active punishing from the political losers here. A majority of California agreed with him. Not only that, but targeting Mozilla but ignoring JavaScript is the absolute height of hypocrisy and hollowless grandstanding, done by people that have a financial stake in JavaScript, but not Mozilla. In short, fuck these people.
  - chasing 12y ago
    Yup. The CEO of a high profile non-profit should not be a bigot.
- rjohnk 12y ago
  The question remains, however. Does he or does he not support the GLBT community. It was of such consequence to Brendan Eich that he was let go. So it must be that Chris Beard does support this community. Because we all know that having no opinion on this matter cannot stand.
  - masklinn 12y ago
    > It was of such consequence to Brendan Eich that he was let go. Eich quit, he wasn't let go. > Because we all know that having no opinion on this matter cannot stand. Eich didn't have "no opinion", and didn't just have "an opinion", he had acted specifically to enshrine inequality in CA's constitution.
    - nailer 12y ago
      You'd really people rather didn't back up their opinions with votes?
      - masklinn 12y ago
        1. Eich didn't just vote, he gave money for prop8. He went out of his way to support curtailing civil rights 2. Would I prefer bigoted assholes not try to force their vindictive bigotry unto others? Are you really asking that?
        nailer 12y ago
        1. OK, I'll reword: you'd rather people not back up their opinions financially? 2. Begs the question: do you consider that everyone who doesn't support gay marriage is bigoted? Also: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The question remains, however. Wait, is it a real question or sarcasm? You seem to switch back and forth. > Does he or does he not support the GLBT community. It was of such consequence to Brendan Eich that he was let go. I don't think that's an accurate description. Eich's past public participation in a particular attack on equal rights targetting that community triggered a public controversy including publicized boycotts of Mozilla, but I don't think that there is any basis for concluding that he was let go because of his stance on LGBT issues rather than his perceived inability and/or unwillingness as CEO to manage a PR issue that was affecting Mozilla. (And even that may just have been the straw that broke the camel's back -- as I recall, there were reports that he was a controversial choice with split support on the board from the outset for reasons unrelated to the LGBT issue.) > So it must be that Chris Beard does support this community. Or that the actual issue around Eich is more complex than the what you are trying to simplify it to.
- tosseraccount 12y ago
  Fair enough. You got the vote down your way.
tosseraccount 12y ago
The downvotes are unfair.
npinguy 12y ago
Since noone is explaining it to you honestly, I'll tell you. By implying that the LGBT interests are a campaign to be bought, or convinced by, or tricked into, you are showing a complete lack of understanding of the true reasons why people in the tech industry (who tend to be socially progressive) find the idea of fighting against gay marriage (which is what Brendan Eich did) completely appalling. You are also revealing yourself as an anti-progressive dinosaur who is on the wrong side of history when it comes to LGBT human rights.
- rjohnk 12y ago
  Thank you for stereotype of me. That's quite progressive of you. And there is no right or wrong side of history, as we are not through with it yet. Let it be known that in my original post, I did not single out one person, nor attack any one position. It was originally supposed to be a one-off remark/question. I knew exactly how it would ruffle feathers, but it's an honest question, as it was the central catalyst why Brendan decided to go. If that catalyst was so important to Mozilla, than the opposite of fighting against gay marriage, fighting for it, should be an opinion of the new CEO, if tolerance, community, acceptance, and freedom are so important to the organization. We should know about it.
  - JackC 12y ago
    > I did not single out one person, nor attack any one position. Sure you did, when you wrote this: > No word on if he supports the GLBT community hook, line and sinker. "Hook, line, and sinker" has a pretty clear meaning, as demonstrated by these examples from dictionaries of American idioms: > The public isn't swallowing the administration's policies hook, line, and sinker. > They made up such a good story that we fell for it hook, line, and sinker. > She fell for our story hook, line, and sinker. > They believed every word hook, line, and sinker. (via http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hook,+line,+and+sinker http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hook,+line,+and+sinker) You suggested that supporting the GLBT community is the same as falling for a lie. That's a straightforward attack on the position of the GLBT community and on people who support it. It's cool if you want to back down from that attack -- I think it would be the right thing to do. But don't act like we don't know what words mean.

by rjohnk 12y ago

bellerocky 12y ago

Your sarcasm doesn't help your argument, and this post is about Chris Beard and Mozilla, not anything else.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- rjohnk 12y ago
  ummm....no. It was in my original post to try to minimize pushback from those that take offense to anything that they disagree with or may find at any time offensive.
  - jasonlotito 12y ago
    No, it wasn't. Not that there is anyway to prove that. I saw the original post. Maybe you added it right after, but no, the original did not have it.
obvious_throw 12y ago
Except that, as has been demonstrated, the position itself carries particular requirements for the candidate's personal political opinions.
- untog 12y ago
  Semantics are exactly what makes this difficult. You might say "requirements for the candidate's personal political opinions", others might say "requirements for the candidate to not hold offensive, discriminatory political opinions".
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - masklinn 12y ago
    > others might say "requirements for the candidate to not hold offensive, discriminatory political opinions". Or just you know don't give significant amount of money to enshrine your offensive and discriminatory political opinions into law, expect open arms when nominated to head a company generally considered progressive then whine that it's unfair to scrutinise and criticise your actions.
    - vgharl 12y ago
      > significant amount of money Is that what we're calling $1000 today? That's not even rent money in the bad areas of the Bay Area. > then whine that it's unfair Citation please. I really can't believe HN right now, trying to deny the fact that prop 8 passed. Unbelievable. Let's all rewrite history, getting rid of an inconvenient fact. Oh, and screw political freedom too. Your sense of offensiveness is offending.
      - untog 12y ago
        trying to deny the fact that prop 8 passed Who is trying to deny that? What relevance does it even have to what we're talking about here?
        vgharl 12y ago
        Because if you are a reasonable person, then you realize crucifying a guy for having a consensus, mainstream opinion is absurd. It's revisionist, retro-active punishing from the political losers here. A majority of California agreed with him. Not only that, but targeting Mozilla but ignoring JavaScript is the absolute height of hypocrisy and hollowless grandstanding, done by people that have a financial stake in JavaScript, but not Mozilla. In short, fuck these people.
- chasing 12y ago
  Yup. The CEO of a high profile non-profit should not be a bigot.
rjohnk 12y ago
The question remains, however. Does he or does he not support the GLBT community. It was of such consequence to Brendan Eich that he was let go. So it must be that Chris Beard does support this community. Because we all know that having no opinion on this matter cannot stand.
- masklinn 12y ago
  > It was of such consequence to Brendan Eich that he was let go. Eich quit, he wasn't let go. > Because we all know that having no opinion on this matter cannot stand. Eich didn't have "no opinion", and didn't just have "an opinion", he had acted specifically to enshrine inequality in CA's constitution.
  - nailer 12y ago
    You'd really people rather didn't back up their opinions with votes?
    - masklinn 12y ago
      1. Eich didn't just vote, he gave money for prop8. He went out of his way to support curtailing civil rights 2. Would I prefer bigoted assholes not try to force their vindictive bigotry unto others? Are you really asking that?
      - nailer 12y ago
        1. OK, I'll reword: you'd rather people not back up their opinions financially? 2. Begs the question: do you consider that everyone who doesn't support gay marriage is bigoted? Also: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The question remains, however. Wait, is it a real question or sarcasm? You seem to switch back and forth. > Does he or does he not support the GLBT community. It was of such consequence to Brendan Eich that he was let go. I don't think that's an accurate description. Eich's past public participation in a particular attack on equal rights targetting that community triggered a public controversy including publicized boycotts of Mozilla, but I don't think that there is any basis for concluding that he was let go because of his stance on LGBT issues rather than his perceived inability and/or unwillingness as CEO to manage a PR issue that was affecting Mozilla. (And even that may just have been the straw that broke the camel's back -- as I recall, there were reports that he was a controversial choice with split support on the board from the outset for reasons unrelated to the LGBT issue.) > So it must be that Chris Beard does support this community. Or that the actual issue around Eich is more complex than the what you are trying to simplify it to.
tosseraccount 12y ago
Fair enough. You got the vote down your way.

tosseraccount 12y ago

The downvotes are unfair.

npinguy 12y ago

Since noone is explaining it to you honestly, I'll tell you. By implying that the LGBT interests are a campaign to be bought, or convinced by, or tricked into, you are showing a complete lack of understanding of the true reasons why people in the tech industry (who tend to be socially progressive) find the idea of fighting against gay marriage (which is what Brendan Eich did) completely appalling. You are also revealing yourself as an anti-progressive dinosaur who is on the wrong side of history when it comes to LGBT human rights.

rjohnk 12y ago
Thank you for stereotype of me. That's quite progressive of you. And there is no right or wrong side of history, as we are not through with it yet. Let it be known that in my original post, I did not single out one person, nor attack any one position. It was originally supposed to be a one-off remark/question. I knew exactly how it would ruffle feathers, but it's an honest question, as it was the central catalyst why Brendan decided to go. If that catalyst was so important to Mozilla, than the opposite of fighting against gay marriage, fighting for it, should be an opinion of the new CEO, if tolerance, community, acceptance, and freedom are so important to the organization. We should know about it.
- JackC 12y ago
  > I did not single out one person, nor attack any one position. Sure you did, when you wrote this: > No word on if he supports the GLBT community hook, line and sinker. "Hook, line, and sinker" has a pretty clear meaning, as demonstrated by these examples from dictionaries of American idioms: > The public isn't swallowing the administration's policies hook, line, and sinker. > They made up such a good story that we fell for it hook, line, and sinker. > She fell for our story hook, line, and sinker. > They believed every word hook, line, and sinker. (via http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hook,+line,+and+sinker http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hook,+line,+and+sinker) You suggested that supporting the GLBT community is the same as falling for a lie. That's a straightforward attack on the position of the GLBT community and on people who support it. It's cool if you want to back down from that attack -- I think it would be the right thing to do. But don't act like we don't know what words mean.