9 ms·

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

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.
cookiecaper 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. Except Mozilla didn't make that choice. Eich was not fired or asked to resign. Mozilla made it clear they still wanted him. Eich voluntarily stepped down and excused himself from the community after it had shown its shallow, naive definition of tolerance. I don't blame him for not wanting to work in the industry anymore.
- Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
  > its shallow, naive definition of tolerance But if you believe that, that's a pretty intolerant view you have there. The question of tolerance of intolerance isn't perhaps as simple as you make out. It's been well discussed without a clear answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
dreamweapon 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. Right. It's really quite simple. All this support of Eich as some kind of a martyr (or a victim of reverse bigotry, in any way comparable to the bigotry Eich promotes through his donations) is grossly misplaced.
downandout 12y ago
I don't believe in the cause that Eich donated to. But taking away someone's job over a political donation is preposterous and disturbing. If he had donated to a liberal cause and was forced out because conservative employees had a problem with it, the entire media would have come down on Mozilla like a ton of bricks. Instead his resignation was celebrated. Chilling political discourse by threatening the livelihoods of those you disagree with is a threat to democracy itself and should not ever be allowed to happen. Eich's forced resignation was an offense against everything America allegedly stands for.
- rpearl 12y ago
  The two sides you paint are not at all equal. Political discourse gets thrown out the window when you are working towards the suppression of the rights of a group of people. If conservative politics is directly linked to bigotry I see no reason we should support it. Perhaps the fiscally conservative, small government political groups should work to dissociate their ideas from intolerance. There is no paradox of tolerance. It is rational to be intolerant of intolerance, in order to preserve a tolerant society. Karl Popper summarizes: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant"
  - downandout 12y ago
    This entire response essentially says that you disagree with his position on the issue. I also disagree with his position on the issue. But here's where we differ. I believe in his right to express his opinion without fear of losing his ability to make a living. You, and the rest of the liberal lynch mob that forced him out, are doing nothing more than suppressing his rights. And thus begins the end of democracy.
    - smtddr 12y ago
      >>You, and the rest of the liberal lynch mob that forced him out, are doing nothing more than suppressing his rights. You have to admit, using your rights to take someone else's rights away.... is a dubious position to hold.

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.

cookiecaper 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. Except Mozilla didn't make that choice. Eich was not fired or asked to resign. Mozilla made it clear they still wanted him. Eich voluntarily stepped down and excused himself from the community after it had shown its shallow, naive definition of tolerance. I don't blame him for not wanting to work in the industry anymore.

Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
> its shallow, naive definition of tolerance But if you believe that, that's a pretty intolerant view you have there. The question of tolerance of intolerance isn't perhaps as simple as you make out. It's been well discussed without a clear answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

dreamweapon 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. Right. It's really quite simple. All this support of Eich as some kind of a martyr (or a victim of reverse bigotry, in any way comparable to the bigotry Eich promotes through his donations) is grossly misplaced.

downandout 12y ago

I don't believe in the cause that Eich donated to. But taking away someone's job over a political donation is preposterous and disturbing. If he had donated to a liberal cause and was forced out because conservative employees had a problem with it, the entire media would have come down on Mozilla like a ton of bricks. Instead his resignation was celebrated. Chilling political discourse by threatening the livelihoods of those you disagree with is a threat to democracy itself and should not ever be allowed to happen. Eich's forced resignation was an offense against everything America allegedly stands for.

rpearl 12y ago
The two sides you paint are not at all equal. Political discourse gets thrown out the window when you are working towards the suppression of the rights of a group of people. If conservative politics is directly linked to bigotry I see no reason we should support it. Perhaps the fiscally conservative, small government political groups should work to dissociate their ideas from intolerance. There is no paradox of tolerance. It is rational to be intolerant of intolerance, in order to preserve a tolerant society. Karl Popper summarizes: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant"
- downandout 12y ago
  This entire response essentially says that you disagree with his position on the issue. I also disagree with his position on the issue. But here's where we differ. I believe in his right to express his opinion without fear of losing his ability to make a living. You, and the rest of the liberal lynch mob that forced him out, are doing nothing more than suppressing his rights. And thus begins the end of democracy.
  - smtddr 12y ago
    >>You, and the rest of the liberal lynch mob that forced him out, are doing nothing more than suppressing his rights. You have to admit, using your rights to take someone else's rights away.... is a dubious position to hold.