5 ms·

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

by bellerocky 12y ago

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.
        untog 12y ago
        I'm not sure what defines a "consensus, mainstream opinion", but support for gay marriage has been over 50% for a few years now. Hardly a definitive yes, but it's certainly not a consensus to the opposite. In California specifically, 61% supported gay marriage in 2013[1]. And he wasn't 'crucified' for having the opinion, it was because he actively contributed to a campaign. Holding a private opinion and financially contributing to a cause are quite different things. Not only that, but targeting Mozilla but ignoring JavaScript is the absolute height of hypocrisy It absolutely is not. Does "JavaScript" pay Eich a salary? Is it a money making entity? Does he even have anything to do with the day to day running of it? Of course not. [1] http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    Others might say "requirements that the incumbent -- not candidate -- be able and willing to effectively manage PR issues that affect the company's interests, whatever their origin or relation to the incumbent."
  - nailer 12y ago
    If the majority of people have offensive opinions, are they still offensive?
    - untog 12y ago
      Well, obviously, 'offensive' is a very subjective thing. People can still be offended by an opinion held by a majority, yes.
      - nailer 12y ago
        Perhaps then being offensive isn't a good criteria to judge something by then.
- 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.

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.
        untog 12y ago
        I'm not sure what defines a "consensus, mainstream opinion", but support for gay marriage has been over 50% for a few years now. Hardly a definitive yes, but it's certainly not a consensus to the opposite. In California specifically, 61% supported gay marriage in 2013[1]. And he wasn't 'crucified' for having the opinion, it was because he actively contributed to a campaign. Holding a private opinion and financially contributing to a cause are quite different things. Not only that, but targeting Mozilla but ignoring JavaScript is the absolute height of hypocrisy It absolutely is not. Does "JavaScript" pay Eich a salary? Is it a money making entity? Does he even have anything to do with the day to day running of it? Of course not. [1] http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Others might say "requirements that the incumbent -- not candidate -- be able and willing to effectively manage PR issues that affect the company's interests, whatever their origin or relation to the incumbent."
- nailer 12y ago
  If the majority of people have offensive opinions, are they still offensive?
  - untog 12y ago
    Well, obviously, 'offensive' is a very subjective thing. People can still be offended by an opinion held by a majority, yes.
    - nailer 12y ago
      Perhaps then being offensive isn't a good criteria to judge something by then.
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.