23 ms·

At first I didn't like the news. Tim Cook is gay, so what? I though 5 seconds about it and then I realized how actually we still need this... we still need to r

by dwild 12y ago

At first I didn't like the news. Tim Cook is gay, so what? I though 5 seconds about it and then I realized how actually we still need this... we still need to remind people that there's nothing wrong with being gay. That's sad that we are still at this point.

angersock 12y ago
Yep. Now if only we could remind people that there's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion. After all, Brendan Eich has done more for computing than Cook ever will.
- thenmar 12y ago
  Brendan Eich donated money with the sole goal of denying equal rights to people based on their sexuality. There's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion, but I think there is something wrong with that. And I suspect you would too if it were you whose rights were being taken away. Edit: Eich supported Proposition 8 which was _ruled unconstitutional_ for violating the Equal Protection Clause. Yes, his support was non-criminal, but he was fundamentally supporting something wrong, both morally and legally.
  - angersock 12y ago
    Eich participated in a public system in an approved way at a political level, did so without letting his politics get in the way of his personal or professional life, and made functional programming ubiquitous. There's nothing wrong with what he did given that he didn't let that view (in the abstract) color his personal interactions. And, let us note, it's all speculation on this point as to what or why he did it, because the man himself hasn't said anything on the matter--mostly because of the gay hate brigade rallied against him. By contrast, Tim Cook continued contracts with Foxconn with the sole goal of minimizing production costs by using underpaid overworked labor--and if you look at Apple close enough, yeah, there's some nastiness there. He's a solid operations guy (clearly!), but has directly supported policies that have harmed both our industry and workers abroad. I'm likely going to get downvoted into oblivion (again, and in hilarious underscoring of my point).
    - dreamweapon 12y ago
      That's an incredibly muddle-headed sequence of arguments you've just made, for sure. But no, we're not going to hate you for it.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        Your inability to respond to any of the points has been noted.
        dreamweapon 12y ago
        Oh, I'm "able." I just don't find them particularly interesting, or worth responding to in detail.
        Karunamon 12y ago
        Then next time, kindly just don't post.
        dreamweapon 12y ago
        I'd kindly prefer that people not litter HN with puerile, psychologically baiting lines of argumentation from out in left field (c.f. "the gay hate brigade", up above) in the first place.
        Karunamon 12y ago
        Trolls and willful fools are cured by the same medicine: downvote, ignore, and flag if they broke the site rules.
    - notjackma 12y ago
      > Tim Cook continued contracts with Foxconn with the sole goal of minimizing production costs by using underpaid overworked labor I'm going to upvote you for this. Just because Tim Cook is gay doesn't make him Mother Teresa. He seems quite happy in promoting brutal Victorian style work-houses because it's "over there". Out of sight, out of mind. He's quite the hypocrite. He's also no better or worse then the operations guy at Dell, Samsung, Lenovo, etc. who are all churning out products from the same manufacturers and assembly lines in China and South-East Asia. I don't know why people keep promoting the myth that he is some amazing operations guy when everything is outsourced anyway, and recent products have suffered from manufacturing delays and raw material supply issues.
  - downandout 12y ago
    So you're saying that stifling political discourse by firing people (or forcing them to quit) - as long as you really, really, disagree with them - is acceptable. Got it. For the sake of yourself and your loved ones, I hope you never voice an unpopular opinion.
    - thenmar 12y ago
      Please don't respond to me with disrespectful and disruptive snark. Nobody was fired. Nobody went to jail. There was no "stifled discourse". If you'd like to elaborate specifically, then please do.
      - downandout 12y ago
        Ok, forced out. Is that more palatable? He was, for all intents and purposes, fired. For expressing a political opinion. In a country that prides itself on being a democracy. If that isn't stifling political discourse, what exactly is it?
        agildehaus 12y ago
        Nobody kicked him out of the country. He was "forced" by the community that thought his views intolerable out of a company that is community driven.
        ArtDev 12y ago
        Just the same if he was a racist or a Nazi. Simply unfit for leadership.
        theseoafs 12y ago
        Murdering someone or throwing them in a prison because they spoke out against the regime is stifling political discourse. Having to step down as CEO of a company because your unpopular political opinions resulted in a vast number of people boycotting your company's products is just a consequence of the way the free market works.
        deleted 12y ago
  - danielweber 12y ago
    supported Proposition 8 which was _ruled unconstitutional_ What does this have to do with anything? Lots of people supported things that later get ruled unconstitutional. Using "constitutional" as a synonym for "good" is a bad idea.
  - neurobro 12y ago
    Eich shares the same moral ground with gay marriage supporters. Anyone supporting government-issued marriage licenses with associated privileges and entitlements is hateful and bigoted toward individuals who aren't marriage material for various reasons beyond their control.
  - wtbob 12y ago
    > Brendan Eich donated money with the sole goal of denying equal rights to people based on their sexuality. You know, I'm sick and tired of this lie. A homosexual has exactly the same right to marriage as a heterosexual: a gay man is exactly as free to marry any unmarried consenting woman as a normal man and a lesbian is exactly free to marry any unmarried consenting man as a normal woman. The essential confusion regards the nature of marriage. It's not about a couple (or group) and their feelings towards one another; it's about the formation of a family and the production of a new generation.
    - mkr-hn 12y ago
      > The essential confusion regards the nature of marriage. It's not about a couple (or group) and their feelings towards one another; it's about the formation of a family and the production of a new generation. I bet you're hard at work trying to deny infertile couples the ability to marry. Even if you were right, which you aren't, tradition is not a compelling argument. We've done away with a lot of stupid traditions, like slavery and dowry. Even if you were right, which you aren't, gay couples can adopt. I could go on, but why? Your arguments are tired and baseless.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        And how about older couples, past the childbearing age? Should they not be allowed to marry? Should couples be forced to divorce after 50? This preposterous argument about 'its about producing a new generation' is sophomoric and lazy. It doesn't stand up to a few seconds of reflection. Yet I hear it again and again - its even part of the Mormon official line.
      - beauSD 12y ago
        Once we get to the point of calling basic human anatomy 'baseless', we've definitely gone off the deep end as a society. This is not about infertility due to medical conditions or age and it's not about tradition - it's about the fact that a man and a woman having sex is the way that human beings are produced. Everything else is an attempt to ignore reality to suit our our personal desires.
- Tloewald 12y ago
  Brendan Eich is entitled to his opinion, and a large not for profit is entitled not to want someone with that opinion as a figurehead. As for who has done more for what — web browsers were going to have a scripting language. Is Javascript so astoundingly good that we can only assume any alternative would have been worse?
  - fleitz 12y ago
    No kidding, if not for Eich we might have a scripting language with integers.
    - city41 12y ago
      I think the blame should land more on Netscape as a whole than Eich. He did remarkably well considering the circumstances.
    - pluma 12y ago
      At least he didn't make the popular mistake of basing every type on strings.
  - dgacmu 12y ago
    Of course he's entitled to his opinion. The public is also entitled to use whatever criteria they wish to choose where they spend their dollars, ad views, or seek employment. A board of directors is also entitled to weigh the effects of its officers public statements and actions on the future health of the company. Note that I draw a very strong distinction here between officers and typical employees -- typical employees are not allowed to speak for the company unless specifically authorized, whereas a high-profile officer's public conduct is more inextricably tangled with the company itself. Someone might rightly interpret Eich's donation as an indication that Mozilla would be a less-friendly environment for a gay programmer than another company would, because Eich's opinions and policies are directly able to shape the culture therein. There's no magic here. There are many ways in which executives are subject to substantially greater scrutiny than ordinary employees. This probably sucks for them, but in today's environment, it's part of the job. Changing that - well, that's a longer discussion.
- dwild 12y ago
  Sure there's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion but it's wrong to hurt other people based on an opinion (in this case he hurt them by limiting their right).
  - angersock 12y ago
    You do realize that he didn't actually limit their rights, correct? He cast a dollar vote in support of a proposition, same way any of us could give campaign donations to a candidate we liked. He participated in the political framework in a widely-accepted way, and the system failed to effect the outcome he seems to have voted for: democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. You might as well round up every Republican who voted against Obama or Democrat who voted against Bush because they're clearly enemies of liberty. Be careful what you wish for.
    - Aloha 12y ago
      Yes. The issue I have with the whole Brendan Eich situation was he was professing thru his right to free speech a profoundly held religious belief, I disagree with his interpretation of scripture, and conceptually that scripture should determine who can get married - but as gay male (who came out at 15, in 1998) I'd fight to the death for his rights to speak his mind. I have an extreme distaste of Social Justice Warriors - there are people whom I firmly believe would never stand up to try to stop a gay bashing, but are more than content to stir up a huge ruckus online. Brendan Eich did the internet community a great service in his time - he didnt deserve to be drummed out for his beliefs, a thoughtcrime is not yet a crime, and I'd rather see him judged for his actions in his management roles not for just what he thinks.
    - function_seven 12y ago
      > democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. That's not true. For several years, people in California were denied marriage rights because of Prop 8. It was judicially overturned, not democratically so. He actually did limit their rights.
      - 12y ago
- notjackma 12y ago
  52% of Californians voted in favor of Prop 8 (to ban same-sex marriage) so you could argue Brendan Eich holds a rather popular opinion.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > 52% of Californians voted in favor of Prop 8 (to ban same-sex marriage) No, they didn't. 52% of those who voted on Prop 8 (about 79% of the ~17M eligible and registered to vote, which were themselves only about 45% of Californians) voted for Prop 8 -- so about 19% of Californians voted for it. > so you could argue Brendan Eich holds a rather popular opinion. Well, no, you couldn't make a good argument that he holds a rather popular opinion based on the results of an election 6 years ago. You could perhaps argue that he holds a view that was popular at the time of the election based on those results. After all, opinions change. [1] [1] see, e.g., http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1012 http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1012
    - notjackma 12y ago
      Semantics. The fact is, of registered voters in California, more people voted against same-sex marriage than for it. Of course, that was 6 years ago... so why should Brendan Eich be ostracised in 2014 for donating money to a campaign which was quite popular back then? At what point did Mozilla's mission for a free and open internet turn into one about social justice and identity politics?
      - vor_ 12y ago
        > Of course, that was 6 years ago... so why should Brendan Eich be ostracised in 2014 for donating money to a campaign which was quite popular back then? It's wrong regardless of when it occurred. > At what point did Mozilla's mission for a free and open internet turn into one about social justice and identity politics? This lame attempt to dismiss equality won't fly.
        notjackma 12y ago
- wldcordeiro 12y ago
  The witch hunt against Brendan was just terrible. He made a minor donation years ago and it's something people blew out of proportion. Here was his statement about inclusiveness after his donation became an issue https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ To me it looks like he was committed to keeping Mozilla inclusive and would have been a great CEO.
  - Crito 12y ago
    To most Americans, $1k is not a "minor" amount of money. Furthermore, the exact amount of money that he donated is fairly irrelevant anyway. The donation, no matter it's magnitude, serves to illustrate what he believes. If I made a $1 donation to the local KKK group, would you make excuses for me because $1 is a trivial amount of money? Of course you would not.
    - byEngineer 12y ago
      I'm very, very far away from judging people's work abilities (like being an CEO) based on their skin color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or ideology. Why you can't be the same?
      - Crito 12y ago
        You would not judge a CEO for publicly admitting to being a racist? I do not believe you. I think that you are lying, either to us or to yourself. Calling something "Ideology" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. You are free to have whatever political beliefs you desire, but we are all free to criticism you for your political beliefs. Our criticism of political beliefs is just as political as the beliefs that we are criticizing; it is fundamentally illogical to put political beliefs above reproach.
        byEngineer 12y ago
        > Calling something "Ideology" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Of course. It is after all entirely different than: Calling someone "Gay" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Or: Calling someone "Jew" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Or: Calling something "Black" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Or: Calling someone "woman" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Or: Calling someone "Muslim" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Right. Obviously our public sphere is full of criticism of Islam (a.k.a. islamophobia), Black people (a.k.a. racism), women (a.k.a sexism), Jews (a.k.a. antisemitism), Gays (a.k.a. homophobia). And YES I would take a racist for CEO - if he is more qualified than others - each and every time. Because I truly believe in a society where gender, sex orientation, race, religion, ideology - do NOT matter. See, this is a paradox. You can't have that, and you just admitted it. Cultural Marxism is full of paradoxes like that. It's impossible to truly have society where gender, sex orientation, race, religion, ideology - do NOT matter. Thank you very much for providing evidence that you see a paradox there as well.
- jackmaney 12y ago
  Eich didn't just "have an unpopular opinion", he actively contributed against civil rights for LGBT people. He is part of a dying breed, and he cannot possibly fade into obscurity quickly enough.
  - hnal943 12y ago
    He held the same position that Obama did at the time.
    - mkr-hn 12y ago
      Obama changed his mind and became an outspoken proponent of equality.
      - ams6110 12y ago
        Yes, very convenient that he was always on the popular side of the issue.
        gtremper 12y ago
        Yeah, its almost like he's representing the populous. Should one not change their options in the face of new evidence? What's the point of debate or discussion otherwise?
    - jackmaney 12y ago
      And yet, Obama didn't take action against the civil rights of LGBT people, did he? Do you hear that sound? That's the point whooshing majestically over your head.
      - hnal943 12y ago
        A politician taking a public stand against an issue is at least as much an action as donating to a cause that would fund those politicians.
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  I see many people saying the community has spoken and he didn't get fired. Okay, so has anyone heard of gamergste? If any of he women developers quit due to all of the harassment online, should we conclude that "the community has spoken"? the only reason you have this opinion is because you disagree with his politics. You don't agree with the freedom for all, only the freedom for people with your opinions, which is not freedom at all. you all should be ashamed of yourselfs for harassing this guy online and forcing him to quit, but I can imagine I will get down voted and I will see a bunch of people justifying this vile and evil behavior. The hypocrisy is why I can't take this community seriously. It's just entertsinment
jzymbaluk 12y ago
>that's sad that we're still at this point That said, public opinion is changing very rapidly. XKCD 1431 (http://xkcd.com/1431/ http://xkcd.com/1431/) offers an interesting visualization and comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage. According to XKCD's source, interracial marriage didn't reach majority approval until 1995, while gay marriage already reached majority approval in 2011. Now obviously this rift could be the result of oddly-worded polls, data mis-interpretation or some other factor and it shouldn't be taken as a strict source, but I believe it speaks volumes all the same
- silencio 12y ago
  Majority opinion may change but there are still so many holdouts. Which is why I'm glad to see things like this. I'm Asian and I married a white guy. It's only been seven months. I lost count of the number of people that raised their eyebrows because of my new European last name (less than the people surprised that he also changed his name!) and also lost count of how many people assumed my husband was Asian ~not~ a big white bearded guy. In SF Bay Area of all places. That's like the most common variety of interracial marriages here. But... the best wrench I threw into the mix? I'm pansexual. If gay marriage has a long way to go still, understanding that I am personally no less attracted to women/others for having married a man is gonna take another 100 years. Even for gay/lesbian folks. It's very weird.
  - melvinmt 12y ago
    Well if you acknowledge that the names are considered European/Asian as you say yourself, and you switch up names on purpose, is it that strange that people are surprised that the person doesn't match up their name? At least your kids will have less problems with this as they have both "bloods" running through their veins. I think the problem is with the concept of names itself, if you're aiming for true etno-neutrality.
    - rglullis 12y ago
      > At least your kids (...) will have both bloods? Are you sure you thought this through?
martin1975 12y ago
Do you think there's anything wrong with Houston's lesbian mayor subpoena-ing pastor's sermons? How about peaceful non-cooperation with the law based on one's protected rights of speech and freedom of religion by refusing to participate in a gay wedding as a photographer or a caterer? How about a militant lesbian activist/"journalist" (Masha Gessen) who admits the true purpose of the "gay rights movement" is not access to marriage, but a redefinition and the eventual elimination? I can continue, but I think you get the point - don't delude yourself by thinking the LGBT folks are here to assert their rights - if it were only that, the above wouldn't be happening. No, they are out to recruit you into agreeing with them. And that, my friend, IS a problem.
CamperBob2 12y ago
While I agree it's a positive thing for him to talk about, I don't care much for the way he's phrasing it. What does it mean to be "proud" of something you are? Isn't that what we criticize white supremacists and other bigots for? Take pride in the things you do, the things you create. My only reaction to someone who takes pride in his or her race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is quizzical indifference.
- dwild 12y ago
  Yeah I wasn't so sure about that either, I agree with you on that.
- gtremper 12y ago
  Pride is the opposite of shame. Its about not being ashamed to be who you are.
- mkr-hn 12y ago
  Pride is helpful for overcoming the shame society lumps on us for it.
- judk 12y ago
  Being proud of who you are and the eay you live is different from being proud of an arbitrary superficial difference between you and others. Proud to be White is leagues worse than proud to be American or Christian or Irish.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Sure, I'll go along with that. But sexual orientation is far more like skin color than it is like a country, religion, or sports team that you identify with for social purposes. If there is a genetic (or at least embryonic) influence behind sexual orientation -- and I believe there is -- then why take "pride" in it?
  - wpietri 12y ago
    But contrast this with black pride. E.g., James Brown's excellent "I'm Black and I'm Proud": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VRSAVDlpDI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VRSAVDlpDI That's hugely different than the white-pride loons. Why? I think it's down to power and oppression. Black people in US society have been oppressed and marginalized for centuries. Decreasingly so, but it's still a big problem. For me, black pride and gay pride are pushing for freedom. While the white-pride people are pretty explicitly pushing against freedom.

by dwild 12y ago

angersock 12y ago

Yep. Now if only we could remind people that there's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion. After all, Brendan Eich has done more for computing than Cook ever will.

thenmar 12y ago
Brendan Eich donated money with the sole goal of denying equal rights to people based on their sexuality. There's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion, but I think there is something wrong with that. And I suspect you would too if it were you whose rights were being taken away. Edit: Eich supported Proposition 8 which was _ruled unconstitutional_ for violating the Equal Protection Clause. Yes, his support was non-criminal, but he was fundamentally supporting something wrong, both morally and legally.
- angersock 12y ago
  Eich participated in a public system in an approved way at a political level, did so without letting his politics get in the way of his personal or professional life, and made functional programming ubiquitous. There's nothing wrong with what he did given that he didn't let that view (in the abstract) color his personal interactions. And, let us note, it's all speculation on this point as to what or why he did it, because the man himself hasn't said anything on the matter--mostly because of the gay hate brigade rallied against him. By contrast, Tim Cook continued contracts with Foxconn with the sole goal of minimizing production costs by using underpaid overworked labor--and if you look at Apple close enough, yeah, there's some nastiness there. He's a solid operations guy (clearly!), but has directly supported policies that have harmed both our industry and workers abroad. I'm likely going to get downvoted into oblivion (again, and in hilarious underscoring of my point).
  - dreamweapon 12y ago
    That's an incredibly muddle-headed sequence of arguments you've just made, for sure. But no, we're not going to hate you for it.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Your inability to respond to any of the points has been noted.
      - dreamweapon 12y ago
        Oh, I'm "able." I just don't find them particularly interesting, or worth responding to in detail.
        Karunamon 12y ago
        Then next time, kindly just don't post.
        dreamweapon 12y ago
        I'd kindly prefer that people not litter HN with puerile, psychologically baiting lines of argumentation from out in left field (c.f. "the gay hate brigade", up above) in the first place.
        Karunamon 12y ago
        Trolls and willful fools are cured by the same medicine: downvote, ignore, and flag if they broke the site rules.
  - notjackma 12y ago
    > Tim Cook continued contracts with Foxconn with the sole goal of minimizing production costs by using underpaid overworked labor I'm going to upvote you for this. Just because Tim Cook is gay doesn't make him Mother Teresa. He seems quite happy in promoting brutal Victorian style work-houses because it's "over there". Out of sight, out of mind. He's quite the hypocrite. He's also no better or worse then the operations guy at Dell, Samsung, Lenovo, etc. who are all churning out products from the same manufacturers and assembly lines in China and South-East Asia. I don't know why people keep promoting the myth that he is some amazing operations guy when everything is outsourced anyway, and recent products have suffered from manufacturing delays and raw material supply issues.
- downandout 12y ago
  So you're saying that stifling political discourse by firing people (or forcing them to quit) - as long as you really, really, disagree with them - is acceptable. Got it. For the sake of yourself and your loved ones, I hope you never voice an unpopular opinion.
  - thenmar 12y ago
    Please don't respond to me with disrespectful and disruptive snark. Nobody was fired. Nobody went to jail. There was no "stifled discourse". If you'd like to elaborate specifically, then please do.
    - downandout 12y ago
      Ok, forced out. Is that more palatable? He was, for all intents and purposes, fired. For expressing a political opinion. In a country that prides itself on being a democracy. If that isn't stifling political discourse, what exactly is it?
      - agildehaus 12y ago
        Nobody kicked him out of the country. He was "forced" by the community that thought his views intolerable out of a company that is community driven.
        ArtDev 12y ago
        Just the same if he was a racist or a Nazi. Simply unfit for leadership.
      - theseoafs 12y ago
        Murdering someone or throwing them in a prison because they spoke out against the regime is stifling political discourse. Having to step down as CEO of a company because your unpopular political opinions resulted in a vast number of people boycotting your company's products is just a consequence of the way the free market works.
      - deleted 12y ago
- danielweber 12y ago
  supported Proposition 8 which was _ruled unconstitutional_ What does this have to do with anything? Lots of people supported things that later get ruled unconstitutional. Using "constitutional" as a synonym for "good" is a bad idea.
- neurobro 12y ago
  Eich shares the same moral ground with gay marriage supporters. Anyone supporting government-issued marriage licenses with associated privileges and entitlements is hateful and bigoted toward individuals who aren't marriage material for various reasons beyond their control.
- wtbob 12y ago
  > Brendan Eich donated money with the sole goal of denying equal rights to people based on their sexuality. You know, I'm sick and tired of this lie. A homosexual has exactly the same right to marriage as a heterosexual: a gay man is exactly as free to marry any unmarried consenting woman as a normal man and a lesbian is exactly free to marry any unmarried consenting man as a normal woman. The essential confusion regards the nature of marriage. It's not about a couple (or group) and their feelings towards one another; it's about the formation of a family and the production of a new generation.
  - mkr-hn 12y ago
    > The essential confusion regards the nature of marriage. It's not about a couple (or group) and their feelings towards one another; it's about the formation of a family and the production of a new generation. I bet you're hard at work trying to deny infertile couples the ability to marry. Even if you were right, which you aren't, tradition is not a compelling argument. We've done away with a lot of stupid traditions, like slavery and dowry. Even if you were right, which you aren't, gay couples can adopt. I could go on, but why? Your arguments are tired and baseless.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      And how about older couples, past the childbearing age? Should they not be allowed to marry? Should couples be forced to divorce after 50? This preposterous argument about 'its about producing a new generation' is sophomoric and lazy. It doesn't stand up to a few seconds of reflection. Yet I hear it again and again - its even part of the Mormon official line.
    - beauSD 12y ago
      Once we get to the point of calling basic human anatomy 'baseless', we've definitely gone off the deep end as a society. This is not about infertility due to medical conditions or age and it's not about tradition - it's about the fact that a man and a woman having sex is the way that human beings are produced. Everything else is an attempt to ignore reality to suit our our personal desires.
Tloewald 12y ago
Brendan Eich is entitled to his opinion, and a large not for profit is entitled not to want someone with that opinion as a figurehead. As for who has done more for what — web browsers were going to have a scripting language. Is Javascript so astoundingly good that we can only assume any alternative would have been worse?
- fleitz 12y ago
  No kidding, if not for Eich we might have a scripting language with integers.
  - city41 12y ago
    I think the blame should land more on Netscape as a whole than Eich. He did remarkably well considering the circumstances.
  - pluma 12y ago
    At least he didn't make the popular mistake of basing every type on strings.
- dgacmu 12y ago
  Of course he's entitled to his opinion. The public is also entitled to use whatever criteria they wish to choose where they spend their dollars, ad views, or seek employment. A board of directors is also entitled to weigh the effects of its officers public statements and actions on the future health of the company. Note that I draw a very strong distinction here between officers and typical employees -- typical employees are not allowed to speak for the company unless specifically authorized, whereas a high-profile officer's public conduct is more inextricably tangled with the company itself. Someone might rightly interpret Eich's donation as an indication that Mozilla would be a less-friendly environment for a gay programmer than another company would, because Eich's opinions and policies are directly able to shape the culture therein. There's no magic here. There are many ways in which executives are subject to substantially greater scrutiny than ordinary employees. This probably sucks for them, but in today's environment, it's part of the job. Changing that - well, that's a longer discussion.
dwild 12y ago
Sure there's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion but it's wrong to hurt other people based on an opinion (in this case he hurt them by limiting their right).
- angersock 12y ago
  You do realize that he didn't actually limit their rights, correct? He cast a dollar vote in support of a proposition, same way any of us could give campaign donations to a candidate we liked. He participated in the political framework in a widely-accepted way, and the system failed to effect the outcome he seems to have voted for: democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. You might as well round up every Republican who voted against Obama or Democrat who voted against Bush because they're clearly enemies of liberty. Be careful what you wish for.
  - Aloha 12y ago
    Yes. The issue I have with the whole Brendan Eich situation was he was professing thru his right to free speech a profoundly held religious belief, I disagree with his interpretation of scripture, and conceptually that scripture should determine who can get married - but as gay male (who came out at 15, in 1998) I'd fight to the death for his rights to speak his mind. I have an extreme distaste of Social Justice Warriors - there are people whom I firmly believe would never stand up to try to stop a gay bashing, but are more than content to stir up a huge ruckus online. Brendan Eich did the internet community a great service in his time - he didnt deserve to be drummed out for his beliefs, a thoughtcrime is not yet a crime, and I'd rather see him judged for his actions in his management roles not for just what he thinks.
  - function_seven 12y ago
    > democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. That's not true. For several years, people in California were denied marriage rights because of Prop 8. It was judicially overturned, not democratically so. He actually did limit their rights.
    - 12y ago
notjackma 12y ago
52% of Californians voted in favor of Prop 8 (to ban same-sex marriage) so you could argue Brendan Eich holds a rather popular opinion.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > 52% of Californians voted in favor of Prop 8 (to ban same-sex marriage) No, they didn't. 52% of those who voted on Prop 8 (about 79% of the ~17M eligible and registered to vote, which were themselves only about 45% of Californians) voted for Prop 8 -- so about 19% of Californians voted for it. > so you could argue Brendan Eich holds a rather popular opinion. Well, no, you couldn't make a good argument that he holds a rather popular opinion based on the results of an election 6 years ago. You could perhaps argue that he holds a view that was popular at the time of the election based on those results. After all, opinions change. [1] [1] see, e.g., http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1012 http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1012
  - notjackma 12y ago
    Semantics. The fact is, of registered voters in California, more people voted against same-sex marriage than for it. Of course, that was 6 years ago... so why should Brendan Eich be ostracised in 2014 for donating money to a campaign which was quite popular back then? At what point did Mozilla's mission for a free and open internet turn into one about social justice and identity politics?
    - vor_ 12y ago
      > Of course, that was 6 years ago... so why should Brendan Eich be ostracised in 2014 for donating money to a campaign which was quite popular back then? It's wrong regardless of when it occurred. > At what point did Mozilla's mission for a free and open internet turn into one about social justice and identity politics? This lame attempt to dismiss equality won't fly.
      - notjackma 12y ago
wldcordeiro 12y ago
The witch hunt against Brendan was just terrible. He made a minor donation years ago and it's something people blew out of proportion. Here was his statement about inclusiveness after his donation became an issue https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ To me it looks like he was committed to keeping Mozilla inclusive and would have been a great CEO.
- Crito 12y ago
  To most Americans, $1k is not a "minor" amount of money. Furthermore, the exact amount of money that he donated is fairly irrelevant anyway. The donation, no matter it's magnitude, serves to illustrate what he believes. If I made a $1 donation to the local KKK group, would you make excuses for me because $1 is a trivial amount of money? Of course you would not.
  - byEngineer 12y ago
    I'm very, very far away from judging people's work abilities (like being an CEO) based on their skin color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or ideology. Why you can't be the same?
    - Crito 12y ago
      You would not judge a CEO for publicly admitting to being a racist? I do not believe you. I think that you are lying, either to us or to yourself. Calling something "Ideology" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. You are free to have whatever political beliefs you desire, but we are all free to criticism you for your political beliefs. Our criticism of political beliefs is just as political as the beliefs that we are criticizing; it is fundamentally illogical to put political beliefs above reproach.
      - byEngineer 12y ago
        > Calling something "Ideology" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Of course. It is after all entirely different than: Calling someone "Gay" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Or: Calling someone "Jew" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Or: Calling something "Black" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Or: Calling someone "woman" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Or: Calling someone "Muslim" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Right. Obviously our public sphere is full of criticism of Islam (a.k.a. islamophobia), Black people (a.k.a. racism), women (a.k.a sexism), Jews (a.k.a. antisemitism), Gays (a.k.a. homophobia). And YES I would take a racist for CEO - if he is more qualified than others - each and every time. Because I truly believe in a society where gender, sex orientation, race, religion, ideology - do NOT matter. See, this is a paradox. You can't have that, and you just admitted it. Cultural Marxism is full of paradoxes like that. It's impossible to truly have society where gender, sex orientation, race, religion, ideology - do NOT matter. Thank you very much for providing evidence that you see a paradox there as well.
jackmaney 12y ago
Eich didn't just "have an unpopular opinion", he actively contributed against civil rights for LGBT people. He is part of a dying breed, and he cannot possibly fade into obscurity quickly enough.
- hnal943 12y ago
  He held the same position that Obama did at the time.
  - mkr-hn 12y ago
    Obama changed his mind and became an outspoken proponent of equality.
    - ams6110 12y ago
      Yes, very convenient that he was always on the popular side of the issue.
      - gtremper 12y ago
        Yeah, its almost like he's representing the populous. Should one not change their options in the face of new evidence? What's the point of debate or discussion otherwise?
  - jackmaney 12y ago
    And yet, Obama didn't take action against the civil rights of LGBT people, did he? Do you hear that sound? That's the point whooshing majestically over your head.
    - hnal943 12y ago
      A politician taking a public stand against an issue is at least as much an action as donating to a cause that would fund those politicians.
paulhauggis 12y ago
I see many people saying the community has spoken and he didn't get fired. Okay, so has anyone heard of gamergste? If any of he women developers quit due to all of the harassment online, should we conclude that "the community has spoken"? the only reason you have this opinion is because you disagree with his politics. You don't agree with the freedom for all, only the freedom for people with your opinions, which is not freedom at all. you all should be ashamed of yourselfs for harassing this guy online and forcing him to quit, but I can imagine I will get down voted and I will see a bunch of people justifying this vile and evil behavior. The hypocrisy is why I can't take this community seriously. It's just entertsinment

jzymbaluk 12y ago

>that's sad that we're still at this point That said, public opinion is changing very rapidly. XKCD 1431 (http://xkcd.com/1431/ http://xkcd.com/1431/) offers an interesting visualization and comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage. According to XKCD's source, interracial marriage didn't reach majority approval until 1995, while gay marriage already reached majority approval in 2011. Now obviously this rift could be the result of oddly-worded polls, data mis-interpretation or some other factor and it shouldn't be taken as a strict source, but I believe it speaks volumes all the same

silencio 12y ago
Majority opinion may change but there are still so many holdouts. Which is why I'm glad to see things like this. I'm Asian and I married a white guy. It's only been seven months. I lost count of the number of people that raised their eyebrows because of my new European last name (less than the people surprised that he also changed his name!) and also lost count of how many people assumed my husband was Asian ~not~ a big white bearded guy. In SF Bay Area of all places. That's like the most common variety of interracial marriages here. But... the best wrench I threw into the mix? I'm pansexual. If gay marriage has a long way to go still, understanding that I am personally no less attracted to women/others for having married a man is gonna take another 100 years. Even for gay/lesbian folks. It's very weird.
- melvinmt 12y ago
  Well if you acknowledge that the names are considered European/Asian as you say yourself, and you switch up names on purpose, is it that strange that people are surprised that the person doesn't match up their name? At least your kids will have less problems with this as they have both "bloods" running through their veins. I think the problem is with the concept of names itself, if you're aiming for true etno-neutrality.
  - rglullis 12y ago
    > At least your kids (...) will have both bloods? Are you sure you thought this through?

martin1975 12y ago

Do you think there's anything wrong with Houston's lesbian mayor subpoena-ing pastor's sermons? How about peaceful non-cooperation with the law based on one's protected rights of speech and freedom of religion by refusing to participate in a gay wedding as a photographer or a caterer? How about a militant lesbian activist/"journalist" (Masha Gessen) who admits the true purpose of the "gay rights movement" is not access to marriage, but a redefinition and the eventual elimination? I can continue, but I think you get the point - don't delude yourself by thinking the LGBT folks are here to assert their rights - if it were only that, the above wouldn't be happening. No, they are out to recruit you into agreeing with them. And that, my friend, IS a problem.

CamperBob2 12y ago

While I agree it's a positive thing for him to talk about, I don't care much for the way he's phrasing it. What does it mean to be "proud" of something you are? Isn't that what we criticize white supremacists and other bigots for? Take pride in the things you do, the things you create. My only reaction to someone who takes pride in his or her race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is quizzical indifference.

dwild 12y ago
Yeah I wasn't so sure about that either, I agree with you on that.
gtremper 12y ago
Pride is the opposite of shame. Its about not being ashamed to be who you are.
mkr-hn 12y ago
Pride is helpful for overcoming the shame society lumps on us for it.
judk 12y ago
Being proud of who you are and the eay you live is different from being proud of an arbitrary superficial difference between you and others. Proud to be White is leagues worse than proud to be American or Christian or Irish.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Sure, I'll go along with that. But sexual orientation is far more like skin color than it is like a country, religion, or sports team that you identify with for social purposes. If there is a genetic (or at least embryonic) influence behind sexual orientation -- and I believe there is -- then why take "pride" in it?
- wpietri 12y ago
  But contrast this with black pride. E.g., James Brown's excellent "I'm Black and I'm Proud": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VRSAVDlpDI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VRSAVDlpDI That's hugely different than the white-pride loons. Why? I think it's down to power and oppression. Black people in US society have been oppressed and marginalized for centuries. Decreasingly so, but it's still a big problem. For me, black pride and gay pride are pushing for freedom. While the white-pride people are pretty explicitly pushing against freedom.