8 ms·

Nobody silenced Brendan Eich. He is free to say whatever he wants about his political affiliations and his personal ideals. With that freedom comes the concomi

Nobody silenced Brendan Eich. He is free to say whatever he wants about his political affiliations and his personal ideals. With that freedom comes the concomitant responsibility for the consequences of that speech. In fact, I think it's admirable that he didn't back down from his position or try and weasel-word his way out of a difficult situation. He stuck to his guns in the face of a firestorm of controversy.

dba7dba 12y ago
Eich was silenced. And not only that, OTHERS were taught a lesson to be silent on that issue and other issues as well. Nothing is more effective to silence someone or groups of people than threatening someone's livelihood.
- drhayes9 12y ago
  Except for threatening someone's life? Let's not get too hyperbolic here. A rich, white guy was forced out of a CEO position and he was "silenced"? He could have given interviews about his position at any tech magazine he could reach by phone. He could publish a blog post on his site. None of this suggests that he was silenced. Let's save the powerful terms for bigger travesties is all I'm saying.
  - angersock 12y ago
    You do realize, of course, that exact same argument goes for a lot of QUILTBAG folks, right? What happened to Eich should be considered at best an embarrassment to the otherwise progressive image of folks seeking sexual respect--at worst, it's a fine example of the same sort of bigotry they've fought against themselves, in some ways justifying many of the petty accusations made against their ilk. It was not a good time to be an ally in tech.
    - drhayes9 12y ago
      I disagree. The strict definition of bigotry is viewing other groups with suspicion, hatred, whatever. So, yes, I'm okay with being bigoted against people who kick puppies. I think the more meaningful definition of bigotry within the context of social equality is an expression of power that flows from those with power to those without it. In this case, the one with power (rich white guy) trying to remove previously granted rights from marginalized folks (gays wanting to get married). The fact that the rich white guy, in this case, was the newly minted CEO of a corporation that strives to bring "Internet equality" added a spice of irony to the whole thing.
      - LordKano 12y ago
        Is there any evidence of Brendan Eich engaging in any actual discrimination against anyone based upon their sexual identity? To borrow your metaphor, you are not being bigoted against someone who kicks puppies. You are being bigoted against someone who isn't bigoted against people who kick puppies.
        drhayes9 12y ago
        No, I'm bigoted against people who send money to organizations who support kicking puppies. Just to stretch this metaphor to the breaking point. EDIT: His donation is actual discrimination based on someone's sexual identity.
        LordKano 12y ago
        I have heard of torturing definitions but you just went full inquisition here. Having an opinion and donating money to a cause is not remotely the same as refusing to hire LGBTQ individuals or refusing to sell/rent a house to them.
        drhayes9 12y ago
        I'm not super interested in developing a hierarchy of sins since I don't think it's useful or realistic. You asked if he'd engaged in actual discrimination -- by donating that money, he had. Having the opinion wasn't what people were mad about.
defen 12y ago
Here's what I don't understand - we're continually told that the Hollywood blacklist in the 40s and 50s was a terrible thing, a shameful episode in America's history. But how is it different? No one has a right to work as a screenwriter, actor, director, etc. I'm genuinely curious and not trolling, how is the Hollywood blacklist different from what happened to Eich, and why is one ok and the other something that needs to be atoned for?
- drhayes9 12y ago
  I'll risk more downvotes, I guess, what the heck. Here are the main differences I see: the power dynamic at play, the scale of the effort, and the availability of concrete proof of action. The Hollywood Blacklist was an attempt by studios and directors and some in the US government (those in power) to ban those underneath them based on, largely, unfounded allegations of Communist sympathies. It also had anti-union motivations, but I might be wrong? It took down dozens of actors, directors, and producers. No concrete "anti-American" actions were proven (that I know of). Brendan Eich stepped down after his customers (and some of his employees) found proof that he'd donated to a cause supporting Prop 8, a piece of legislation that would have removed previously granted rights to homosexuals trying to marry. The donation was a specific action that Eich took that his customers disagreed with. I think the power dynamic is the telling one. Oligarchic vs. grassroots, etc.
  - tbrownaw 12y ago
    And yet both are meant to stifle/punish dissenting political opinions. Are the only differences really who is doing the stifling and how flimsy their evidence is?
    - dasil003 12y ago
      Obviously not. The political opinions are objectively different even outside the bubble of current political correctness. One is about the form of government and the other is about human rights.
      - 12y ago

dba7dba 12y ago

Eich was silenced. And not only that, OTHERS were taught a lesson to be silent on that issue and other issues as well. Nothing is more effective to silence someone or groups of people than threatening someone's livelihood.

drhayes9 12y ago
Except for threatening someone's life? Let's not get too hyperbolic here. A rich, white guy was forced out of a CEO position and he was "silenced"? He could have given interviews about his position at any tech magazine he could reach by phone. He could publish a blog post on his site. None of this suggests that he was silenced. Let's save the powerful terms for bigger travesties is all I'm saying.
- angersock 12y ago
  You do realize, of course, that exact same argument goes for a lot of QUILTBAG folks, right? What happened to Eich should be considered at best an embarrassment to the otherwise progressive image of folks seeking sexual respect--at worst, it's a fine example of the same sort of bigotry they've fought against themselves, in some ways justifying many of the petty accusations made against their ilk. It was not a good time to be an ally in tech.
  - drhayes9 12y ago
    I disagree. The strict definition of bigotry is viewing other groups with suspicion, hatred, whatever. So, yes, I'm okay with being bigoted against people who kick puppies. I think the more meaningful definition of bigotry within the context of social equality is an expression of power that flows from those with power to those without it. In this case, the one with power (rich white guy) trying to remove previously granted rights from marginalized folks (gays wanting to get married). The fact that the rich white guy, in this case, was the newly minted CEO of a corporation that strives to bring "Internet equality" added a spice of irony to the whole thing.
    - LordKano 12y ago
      Is there any evidence of Brendan Eich engaging in any actual discrimination against anyone based upon their sexual identity? To borrow your metaphor, you are not being bigoted against someone who kicks puppies. You are being bigoted against someone who isn't bigoted against people who kick puppies.
      - drhayes9 12y ago
        No, I'm bigoted against people who send money to organizations who support kicking puppies. Just to stretch this metaphor to the breaking point. EDIT: His donation is actual discrimination based on someone's sexual identity.
        LordKano 12y ago
        I have heard of torturing definitions but you just went full inquisition here. Having an opinion and donating money to a cause is not remotely the same as refusing to hire LGBTQ individuals or refusing to sell/rent a house to them.
        drhayes9 12y ago
        I'm not super interested in developing a hierarchy of sins since I don't think it's useful or realistic. You asked if he'd engaged in actual discrimination -- by donating that money, he had. Having the opinion wasn't what people were mad about.

defen 12y ago

Here's what I don't understand - we're continually told that the Hollywood blacklist in the 40s and 50s was a terrible thing, a shameful episode in America's history. But how is it different? No one has a right to work as a screenwriter, actor, director, etc. I'm genuinely curious and not trolling, how is the Hollywood blacklist different from what happened to Eich, and why is one ok and the other something that needs to be atoned for?

drhayes9 12y ago
I'll risk more downvotes, I guess, what the heck. Here are the main differences I see: the power dynamic at play, the scale of the effort, and the availability of concrete proof of action. The Hollywood Blacklist was an attempt by studios and directors and some in the US government (those in power) to ban those underneath them based on, largely, unfounded allegations of Communist sympathies. It also had anti-union motivations, but I might be wrong? It took down dozens of actors, directors, and producers. No concrete "anti-American" actions were proven (that I know of). Brendan Eich stepped down after his customers (and some of his employees) found proof that he'd donated to a cause supporting Prop 8, a piece of legislation that would have removed previously granted rights to homosexuals trying to marry. The donation was a specific action that Eich took that his customers disagreed with. I think the power dynamic is the telling one. Oligarchic vs. grassroots, etc.
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  And yet both are meant to stifle/punish dissenting political opinions. Are the only differences really who is doing the stifling and how flimsy their evidence is?
  - dasil003 12y ago
    Obviously not. The political opinions are objectively different even outside the bubble of current political correctness. One is about the form of government and the other is about human rights.
    - 12y ago